[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.

    > From: Alex Shinn <foof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

    > At Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:01:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Lord wrote:

    > > Just consider me as having walked around in the commons for a while
    > > carrying a big sign that says "Don't make lame implementations of
    > > Scheme strings."

    > This is not helpful, you're just insulting Bear's and Shiro's
    > implementations which are perfectly valid and have their own advantages
    > over Pika.  Scheme should be about encouraging diverse implementations.

I agree about encouraging.

So far as I know, the details I've heard about Bear's are such that I
would consider it to conform to the guidance.   So I certainly don't
think I insulted his.

I'm not aware enough about the details of Shiro's.  All I'm (sort of)
aware of is that he's dealing with a EUCJP -- which sounds very
challenging if you want to wind up with an implementation suitable for
intensive string processing.   (Unicode is similarly challenging.)

I think I probably insulted Perl and Python, though.