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.
> Alex Shinn 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. - effectively elements composing lists and vectors assume write formatting, otherwise display formatting is assumed; which seems fairly standard. > 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. - agreed; who says strings can't actually passed as lazy buffered streams? >> (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. - suspect it all largely depends on what one is attempting to optimize for. > -- > Alex >