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

Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 91 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 91 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@knm.org.pl> writes:

>> Storage is irrelevant.  An implementation would be free to store
>> characters however it wished.  char->integer and char<? can return
>> whatever the implementation pleases.  I would rather drop them, since
>> they have nothing really to do with characters.
> Then it's impossible to implement a UTF-8 encoder. There is an
> infinite number of potential characters, and there is no way to
> examine what a given character means.

What exactly makes it impossible?  There are an infinity of possible
integers, and this hasn't hampered the implementation of <.

> Now, if you come with a set of routines for manipulating the code
> point structure of a character, I don't believe that the terminology:
> calling it a character instead of a string, and calling the elements
> code points instead of characters, is so essential to break
> established practice of using code points or even lower level code
> units as Scheme characters.

There is no "established practice" of doing this.  The established
practice is to pretend that code points and abstract characters are
the same.