This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Matthew Flatt <mflatt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We'd much prefer to not invent yet another syntax for strings. There is > a high bar for doing something other than established conventions. > > My feeling is that the established C notation is not ideal, but it is > reasonable and more widely understood than any other notation. The draft alludes to an alternative: > Another possibility would be to use a delimited Scheme number within a > string, as in Gambit. Concretely, this would mean using Scheme literals for the scalar values like so: #\#e65 #\#e#x41 ... are all syntaxes equivalent to #\A. In strings, they would need to be delimited by something, say ";": "\#e65;BC" => "ABC" (Gambit currently has the char literals, but not the strings, I believe.) This would have the advantage of being in line with the regular numerical literals, thus avoiding redundancy in the lexical syntax. It is, of course, completely different from what C and Java have. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla