This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
> From: Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx> > > but all implementations must either refuse to read > > "\U+30AB.\U+309A." > > or have > > (string-length "\U+30AB.\U+309A.") => 2 > I see. I think it's reasonable and acceptable. EUCJP > implementation can inform the user that it can't read the constant. > > There are a couple of edge cases that I'd like to be clearer. > > Can it map U+30AB to EUCJP #xA5AB, and U+309A to some > alternative character that designates unrecognized character? > (U+3013 is used in Japan traditionally). It'll satisfy > codepoint index requirements. Though > (string-ref "\U+30AB.\U+309A." 1) would be a surprise. > This can be either way---if it's not allowed in the proposal, > I can provide a flag so the implementation can behave either > "strictly conforming Unicode API" or "loose mode". If your implementation can read: "\U+30AB.\U+309A." doesn't that mean it should also read: (list #\U+30AB #\U+309A) I'm not sure how to reconcile those. > Another edge case. Suppose U+30AB and U+309A codepoints are > written directly (without escaping) in the source code. > EUCJP implementation can still load such a file, if it is informed > that the source is in one of Unicode CES. It will convert > those two codepoints into one EUCJP #xA5AB character during > reading, so it'll produce a string of one character. > Is it an out of scope of the Unicode API? I specifically mean the R6RS recommendations to _not_ preclude that interpretation. Yes, you should be able to read that string constant from some Unicode stream and wind up with a one character string constant. If someone writes a non-portable program that says "This program assumes that all string constants are Unicode [and, in such and such a canonicalization form, etc.]" then that program wouldn't necessarily run correctly on your implementation. -t