Thomas Lord scripsit:
> Example: I've used the CHAR type in a traditional lisp way: to
> represent typed characters with "bucky bits" like
> META-ALT-SUPER-X. I understand others have as well
> and do you agree permitting at least /that/ would be a reasonable
> compromise? If that example should be permitted that gives us at least
> a loosening of the range restrictions.
If you want those, then introduce the type BUCKY-CHAR, a supertype of
CHAR. Why not? That way CHAR remains portable and you can work in
BUCKY-CHARs and, if needed, BUCKY-STRINGS.
> Example: Scheme has been used quite a few times, successfully,
> in embedded systems (such as controlling small robots). Such
> applications often need a small footprint and don't need, for
> example, large Unicode property tables. If that's permitted, that
> gives us a shrinking of the mandatory character set.
Fortunately, the property tables are needed only if the program
imports (r6rs unicode) -- the base library doesn't have any
procedures depending on Unicode properties.
--
"Well, I'm back." --Sam John Cowan <cowan_at_ccil.org>
Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 18:10:35 UTC