[r6rs-discuss] Strings

From: MichaelL_at_frogware.com <MichaelL>
Date: Mon Mar 26 12:12:22 2007

> I would not expect a Unicode expert to know about implementation
> details of
> optimizing Scheme implementations, which are far different from the
> details
> and constraints of a C library, a browser, or a stand-alone XSLT
> processor).
> I would take their advice as a rule-of-thumb (as in follow it when
> you don't
> know any better). I trust that the editors know better.

I'm not sure that I agree with your first claim. There are many languages
that have issues similar to those of Scheme, there are many that have
already added Unicode, and there are some that have had expert help in
doing so. Anyway, I certainly agree that the editors could weigh any
expert advice presented; I just get the sense that there aren't many
experts involved in the discussion. (Obviously, that includes me.)

I have two concerns.

First, the current standard takes the position that code units should be
hidden from programmers. That isn't really a Scheme implementation issue,
it's a philisophical issue, and it has consequences--like indirectly
favoring UTF-32 (ignoring, for the time being, exotic string
representations). I think an expert could probably add value to that
debate.

Second, there's a recurring theme in these threads that UTF-16 is a
mistake and should probably be deprecated, when in fact the people who
designed Unicode see it as a purposeful optimization. I can find no
indication from any expert that there is or should be a movement toward
UTF-32. Again, this isn't really a Scheme implementation issue either, and
again I think an expert could probably add value to that debate too.
Received on Mon Mar 26 2007 - 12:11:15 UTC