[r6rs-discuss] perhaps i should be formal, but....

From: Jeff Read <bitwize>
Date: Wed Mar 14 19:27:51 2007

On 3/14/07, MichaelL_at_frogware.com <MichaelL_at_frogware.com> wrote:

> It's possible that I misunderstand you, but I think we're on the same page.
> I'm also concerned that R6RS, as currently written, seems to require
> UCS-4/UTF-32 strings. The problem is that string-ref returns characters, and
> characters can't be surrogates. Given that Windows, Mac, Java, and IBM's ICU
> all use UTF-16, that would be a Bad Thing. In fact, my position would be
> even more extreme: I lament the loss of single/multi byte strings in general
> (which would include UTF-8). They're still useful for low-level work. In
> fact, they'll still be needed--think of the various Scheme to C compilers,
> for example, that will need a char equivalent--they just won't be
> standardized anymore.

Is there any reason why bytevectors will not fill the need for
single-byte strings?

--Jeff
Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 19:27:39 UTC