[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: strings draft

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

At Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:02:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Lord wrote:
> You have a choice.
> 1) Standard Scheme becomes case-sensitive.  May as well drop the case
>    mappings from the standard entirely, in this case.
> 2) Standard Scheme specifies a deterministic case mapping for the
>    portable character set in which portable programs may be written.
> 3) Standard Scheme does not provide for portable Scheme source texts.
> I pick (2) because, after all, it would be naive to think that the
> standard procedures for casemapping are linguistically sensitive in
> the first place.   My second choice would be (1) but it would be a
> sufficiently incompatible change that I don't take it seriously.   (3)
> -- which seems to be what you are advocating -- is something I
> consider completely unacceptable:

As do I, I certainly was not advocating (3).  It was a side-comment to
Thomas Bushnell's statement that case-mapping procedures take a 2nd
locale parameter, saying the parameter could be made optional in the
same way that (current-input-port) and (current-output-port) are
optional in the standard I/O procedures.  It's a convenience
issue... people write the standard I/O procedures enough that this seems
a useful feature, people don't use eval enough for R5RS to have defined
a (current-environment) (which opens a new can of worms anyway).

I'm not arguing either way as to using a default (current-locale), I'm
just pointing it out as a likely possibility (with semi-standard support
as it in effect already exists in SRFI-29).

Both of my suggestions on c.l.s. (of which I prefer the former) fall
under (2).