[r6rs-discuss] Re: [Formal] formal comment (ports, characters, strings, Unicode)

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Mon Mar 19 14:32:36 2007

Per Bothner wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you are making
between characters and keyboard events. Both are captured
by my Shannon-referring definition of characters. Neither
keyboard events or 5.92's definition of CHAR captures any
linguistically robust definition of textual characters. So, what are
these characters of which you speak?




>
>> 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.


What's incorrect about it? Also: The world has long been multi-lingual
but, more to the point, what has that to do with 5.92's CHAR?
It would be equally multi-lingual to lock down CHAR as UTF-8
code units, UTF-16 code units, scalar values, grapheme clusters.
It would be equally multi-lingual to permit but not require any of
those interpretations and to permit but not require extensions. It
would be better multi-lingual to permit extensions in areas that Unicode
has specifically declined to pursue. What's you're point?

-t
Received on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 14:42:05 UTC