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

Re: the discussion so far

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.

"John.Cowan" <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> It's important to note the rather subtle definition of "canonical
> equivalence" in Unicode.  It's not the case that if two strings are
> canonically equivalent, a Unicode-compliant process MUST treat them
> identically.  Rather, a Unicode- compliant process MAUST NOT
> assume that another Unicode-compliant process will treat them
> differently.

I believe that a sufficiently fancy Scheme implementation should be
allowed to treat canonically equivalent sequences identically.  We
should not standardize in Scheme a differential treatment here.