[r6rs-discuss] Strings

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Fri Mar 23 20:27:40 2007

John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Lord scripsit:
>
>
>> In that sense, we're left arguing mostly over the names of
>> things and I'm on the side that says the proper name for
>> the imagined CHARLIKE? type is actually, gosh, CHAR?.
>>
>
> Ahem. Exactly.
>
> [insert references to our fathers before us and Yang Worship Words.]
>
>


;-) Just to make sure that nothing is ever simple: I recall concluding
that *even if* one wants CHARLIKE? to not be CHAR?, there
are still some problems in the way that CHAR is constructed in 5.92.
So, it's not *entirely* that we're arguing over the names of things.

-t
Received on Fri Mar 23 2007 - 20:37:41 UTC