Thomas Lord wrote:
> Per Bothner wrote:
>> Because there is no such thing as "portably reversing a string".
>
> ? There certainly is in R5.
I should have said "the concert of reversing a string is not
well-defined" - i.e. it is language *and* application-dependent.
And there is no real-world natural-language application for
this, except perhaps puzzles and cryptography, which aren't
really natural-language applications, I'd argue.
> The context in this subthread is an imagined set of character-like values
> that includes the Unicode scalar values central to reflection on
> Scheme source, plus other characters that include "bucky bits".
Keyboard events may have bucky bits. However, keyboard events
are not characters, and bucky bits are not useful in the context
on standardizing characters and strings, unless you also want to
standardize input events.
> Given something over 30 years worth of bucky-bit characters
> in lisp systems, why do think this is a non-real-world, puzzle-only,
> artificial use-case?
I was talking about reversing a string, not bucky bits per se.
But I explained above why I don't think bucky bits are relevant.
Characters do not have bucky bits. The "30 years of bucky-bit
characters" is due to incorrectly conflating characters and
input events, which does not make sense in today's multi-lingual
world.
--
--Per Bothner
per_at_bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 14:22:35 UTC