[r6rs-discuss] port/char/string alternative

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Tue Mar 20 17:00:36 2007

John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Lord scripsit:
>
>
>> And, in general, one thing that might be more widely
>> agreed upon than either my formal comment or srfi-52
>> is that there is no non-controversial way to directly
>> extend CHAR/STRING from R5 into a full-blown
>> basis for Unicode programming.
>>
>
> Anything can be made controversial if someone chooses to
> controvert it.
>
>


Are you trying to imply that I and everyone else who has criticized
the draft on these points is trying to make controversy for
controversy's sake?

To be clear, I'd like the Report series to remain the definition
of a language I want to support. There are many reasons, it
seems, why 5.92 won't pass that test but I happened to focus on
an area that is pretty isolated and about which I know a thing or
two.

-t
Received on Tue Mar 20 2007 - 17:10:03 UTC