[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> Yup, same basic page; with a few asides:
> - still don't suspect it's a good idea to specify any particular encoding
> for scheme's required character-set.
Agreed, but I don't have any problem with a SRFI or standardized option
that permits it and defines "this is how it should work if you implement
> - still don¹t suspect it's a good idea to allow potentially non-portable
> characters to be used in identifier or comments.
This is effectively saying that extensions in this area are bad, and I
can't agree with that.
Bradd W. Szonye