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.
Which is the very reason that specifying a character encoding for scheme's character-set breaks most existing implementations', and programs hosted on those implementations, assumption of i/o port and string encoding neutrality. As because the standard "goes of it's way *not* to assume a particular character encoding and repertoire", it enables implementations to adopt the host's native character encoding as it's own; thereby forming an equivalency between characters and raw-native-byte data, thereby enabling the use of scheme in a wide variety of applications which require raw byte i/o, and data butters (using scheme's native i/o ports and strings to do so). This alone would seem to be a good reason to continue not specifying scheme's character encoding, enabling it to remain equivalent to the host's native-byte data encoding. Where then, new standard scheme procedures can be defined to encode and manipulate encoded data stored within native-byte scheme strings as required for whatever specific purpose desired; and/or alternatively, distinct "world aware" character and string types, with whatever magical properties they may require could be defined, independently of the existing encoding-agnostic byte-oriented i/o ports and strings. -paul- bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hear, Hear. The standard goes out of its way to *not* assume > a particular character encoding and repertoire; it follows that > code relying on a particular character encoding in order to do > binary I/O is nonportable.