[R6RS] draft Unicode SRFI

Manuel Serrano Manuel.Serrano
Fri Jul 8 00:33:43 EDT 2005

Hello there,

I'm catching up mails on Unicode. In general, I like the proposal. However,
I have one comment and one objection. 

I'm not sure to understand the issue about CR-LF vs Newline. I don't understand
the problem and the arguments. I have read about "opening a file in binary
or text mode". I have also read about "Unix files". This looks like to me
OS idiosyncrasy appearing in the proposal. Do we really have to discuss these
points in R6?

I'm really not in favor of here-strings. 

- First, I don't sure why we have to discuss this on the srfi about

- May be its because they are imposing constraints on the source code itself?
  What is the encoding used for expressing here-strings. Is is ascii,
  iso-latin, ut8, ucsXXX? How do we specify that?

- If I understand why here-strings could be useful, in certain contexts, 
  I find them specially unaesthetic. Mostly because they do not adopt an 
  s-expression like syntax. I have the impression of seeing SHELL-like 
  emerging in Scheme (it looks like a bad dream).
- I don't think that the syntax scales up very well. Let's me illustrate this 
  with two personal examples:
  In Scheme programs of my own, at two different places, I'm using "mixed"
  code (i.e., code that mixes two different syntaxes). First, in Skribe, as 
  I have said earlier with the [...] syntax. Second in a Web server where
  I use a {...} syntax for inserting JavaScript codes inside Scheme programs. 
  May be I'm just unlucky but for these two applications the here-string syntax
  is of no help for me! 


More information about the R6RS mailing list