[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: strings draft
> From: tb@xxxxxxxxxx (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > No. The c.l.s. idea is to make mandatory the case mappings of the
> > standard procedures for the portable character set only.
> > Specifically, 'a..z' must map to 'A..Z' (and vice versa) and that's
> > all that's required.
> This gets the Turkish I Problem wrong then.
Not quite, no.
> In Turkish, i-with-dot capitalizes to I-with-dot. If you map i->I,
> then you get this wrong, for Turkish.
Did you actually read the c.l.s. post?
> > > I do not object to a Scheme that chooses to do this. But your draft
> > > seems to exclude a Scheme that does *best* Unicode practice, which is
> > > not to shove any details under the rug.
> > No, the draft says that for _linguistic_ processing, the standard
> > procedures for case mapping are unsuitable. We need a SRFI to
> > introduce _new_ procedures implementing "Unicode best practice" for
> > linguistic processing.
> Sure. But since we can easily make a draft that doesn't have this
> problem at all (by dropping case-mapping as a char-by-char thing
> entirely) we can fix it.
Not really. Whether "char at a time" or "string at a time", `list' is
not the (linguistically) ci equivalent of `LIST' in -TR locales.