This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 52 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 52 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
No argument, extensions are extensions, just don't think it should be "standard". (as such I suspect you're arguing it shouldn't be explicitly prohibited, which seem quiet reasonable.) -paul- > From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:05:37 -0800 > To: srfi-52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Encodings. > Resent-From: srfi-52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:05:47 +0100 (NFT) > > 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 > the feature." > >> - 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 > http://www.szonye.com/bradd >