[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fri, 4 May 2001 15:06:13 -0400
> From: Masao Uebayashi <address@hidden>
> I'm not familiar with such an area (too), but this looks nice to
> me. At least, I feel a bit happiness to see that Guile is not
> destined to UTF-8 as Perl 6 or Python 2.
I am not sure I understood you correctly, but you seem to be
saying you do not like UTF-8. What is your objection, and
does it apply to all of Unicode, or just UTF-8 encoding?
> > In the long run, Guile is supposed to replace the Emacs Lisp
> > interpreter in Emacs. For that integration to work in a useful way,
> > Guile strings and Emacs Lisp strings need to be the same objects, and
> > in general, Guile and Emacs should follow the same M17N approach.
> Fully agreed.
Semi-agreed. I don't really know enough about the emacs
approach to make specific suggestions, but I hate to see
a policy of bug compatibility.
> > Or at least, that used to be the consensus. There are a bunch of (I
> > suspect inevitably) controversial design decisions we made a while
> > back which the current contributors to Guile don't like. I don't know
> > how that's going to be sorted out.
> It would be nice that this consensus is documented somewhere.
I have been subscribed to this list for five or six years. I don't
really remember a consensus so much as a change of subject. If a
person from Japan were to write a reasonable description of how things
should be, it might well create a consensus. Most European-Americans
would probably be satisfied to extend Ascii to eight bit Latin-1
and call it done.
> Hmm, why didn't you mention Mule? Isn't it the consensus that adopting
> Mule's internal encoding to Guile?
Where is the place to learn the details of Mule?
-- Keith Wright <address@hidden>
Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
--- Food, Shelter, Source code. ---