[R6RS] draft Unicode SRFI
Thu Jun 30 11:15:37 EDT 2005
Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> writes:
> At Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:24:33 +0200, Michael Sperber wrote:> > * I added the \<eol><whitespaces> and \<space> string escapes, as
>> > discussed on this list.
>> I think I probably missed \<space>---does this mean I can only
>> terminate a variable-length escape sequence with a space?
> No. It's so you can terminate a \<eol> sequence and continue with spaces.
> See Kent's message here for an example:
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. So what about tabs? This whole
thing just seems very kludgy and marginal to me, especially if we've
got here strings.
> I think we want Unicode symbols to be in Scheme symbols, for example.
>> It seems to me we at least should exclude Unicode separators.
> Separators are defined by SRFI-14 to be whitespace, right?
Ah, OK, I see what you mean: they're part of the whitespaces, so I
guess that's OK. But I'm still worried about things like
punctuation. I'd rather have a positive than a negative definition of
symbol constituents, anyway, for the same reasons Marc mentioned for
the symbol syntax in general when the -> thing came up.
>> - Could the SRFI please have an issues section where the things we
>> haven't agreed on are listed?
> Ok, I'll add that.
It occurred to me that the bar notation for symbol/identifier literals
may also have some unpleasant interaction with the mantissa-width
>> - The document says "any C string literal is also a Scheme string
>> literal": I don't believe that's true anymore, as the \x syntax is
>> variable-length in C.
> In that case, I favor changing \x, but...
>> (The sentence is literally true, I guess, but
>> not in a meaningful way.) As a result, I'm pretty confused on the
>> compatibility issue---if we're not compatible with C, we could also
>> make octal escapes fixed-length at least, to make the whole
>> scalar-value-literal issue a little less patchwork than it seems
>> now. Compatibility with C and Java should also be in the issues
>> section probably.
> ... there seems to be more support among the editors to ditch octal and
> not worry about complete compatibility with C. That's ok with me.
I'm more confused than ever: I asked the question explicitly whether
compatibility with C and/or Java was important, and only Marc
replied---but we have some weird mix now that I'm not positive is
really going to make things zippy for the C/Java people. I asked if
people actively preferred the \[xuU] notation over Gambit-C's, and the
situation is similarly confused. Marc came closest by saying:
> Although Gambit has supported this notation for some time now, I'm not
> convinced it is really the best approach. I think a syntax that is
> shared by characters and strings would be better (and have a single
> unified syntax).
The SRFI draft doesn't have a completely shared syntax, and I made a
proposal to make them consistent with Gambit-C's syntax. I may not be
reading the discussion right. (It's not worth keeping up the SRFI
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS