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

From: William D Clinger <will>
Date: Wed Mar 14 22:14:15 2007

I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors.

MichaelL wrote:
> 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.

I don't know exactly what you mean by single/multi byte
strings, but you indicated that they include UTF-8.

I am not aware of anything in R5RS that would correspond
to any definition of single/multi byte strings that would
include UTF-8. So what do you mean by saying they "won't
be standardized anymore"?

> Bytevectors are definitely a very useful low-level addition to Scheme. But
> single/multi-byte strings were, I think, an unnecessary loss, especially
> for those who do lots of operating sytem- and library-level work.

You seem to be lamenting the loss of something that never
was.

Will
Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 22:14:12 UTC