[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:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:
>> A generically named function on a fancy/schmancy
>> system should do the correct locale-dependent operation when case
>> mapping is requested.  It should also provide a "neutral" locale which
>> will implement the locale-independent case mapping from the Unicode
>> data files.
> Then this seems to be a matter of taste (or theology): you think that
> the names which our fathers knew of old ought to be bound to the smartest
> routines available in a given implementation, whereas I think they ought
> to be bound to simple basic universally definesd routine that does all
> of the job in some circumstances and part of it in others.  If you agree
> that this is the remaining point of disagreement, I'll say no more about
> it, and those whose job it is to decide can do so.

I agree that this is so, but I would not use the same words to
describe it. :)

I'll say *why* I think this way though:

Programmers are very likely to use the standard functions when they
can; they are very likely to do so.  I want them to automagically get
the fancy/schmancy things, which seems the only right behavior on a
system with fully integrated multi-language support.  They will not
*want* to write something with half-assed support, but they are very
likely to be misled.

In other words, I want the "names which our fathers knew of old" to be
bound to something which is not idiosyncratic, or represents only a
subset of the system.

>> As long as the functions do not rigidly require
>> specific behaviors that are known to cause problems, and are not
>> misleadingly named, I'm content.
> All specific behaviors are known to cause problems in *some* circumstances.

"and are not misleadingly named" which is not a separate condition,
but one working together with the first.

If you don't name it misleadingly, then I don't care what the function
does here.