This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 48 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 48 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
At Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:24:09 -0500, Paul Schlie wrote: > > (display (string "list: " ls #\newline) to-what-ever-port-you-like) 1) Does string use display or write to convert objects? You often need to interleave both. 2) This can be inefficient to the point of being unusable. If ls takes up more than 50% of your memory, you can't even build the intermediate string. > (Personally I see no reason not to consider advocating simply backward > compatibly extending (string ...) rather than advocating "standardization" > of a function with limited additional utility which is arguably > inconsistent with the language's philosophy; but that of course is the > benefit that the SRFI process/forum provides us all.) I wasn't suggesting this for backwards compatibility so much as forwards compatibility. There is currently some uncertainty in the Scheme community as to exactly what a character is. For porting Unicode-aware Gauche scripts to other Schemes I've been toying with the idea of unifying characters and numbers. For future Schemes I wonder if implementing characters as single-character symbols might not be a good idea (probably still implemented using tagging under the hood rather than bloat the symbol table). Also I think it's good to keep string in the same style as list and vector - it should build a sequence from the individual elements, and not extrapolate them. -- Alex