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

Re: Octet vs Char

To: Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Octet vs Char
From: Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:10:53 -1000 (HST)
Cc: jivera@xxxxxxxxx, bear@xxxxxxxxx, lord@xxxxxxx, srfi-50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200401262040.44715.Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401261049230.30970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87fze226q2.fsf@xxxxxxxxx> <200401262040.44715.Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

From: Ken Dickey <Ken.Dickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:40:44 +0100

> What am I missing here?

I think the issue here is whether we should narrow the
possibility of implementation strategies for O(1)
ref/set, or allow wider range of implementations (e.g
tree, shared substring, multibyte string, etc).

Anyway, I'll wait for Tom's new string srfi.

--shiro

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Octet vs Char
  - From: Tom Lord

References:
- Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft)
  - From: bear
- Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft)
  - From: Matthew Dempsky
- Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft)
  - From: Ken Dickey

Prev by Date: Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft)
Next by Date: Re: Octet vs Char
Previous by thread: Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft)
Next by thread: Re: Octet vs Char
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread