Re: defining new character names?

[Keith Wright]

> From: Lynn Winebarger <address@hidden>
> 
> Given the raging debate on this, I'll point out that Chez
> Scheme has a function char-name that does this job.

The debate is over a mechanism to define new character names
(or possibly more general constants).  This appears to be
a function (or macro?) that fetches an already defined
character name.  I don't see the relevance.

> (char-name #\space) => 'space
> (char-name 'space) => #\space

So given a character it returns the name as a symbol,
but given a symbol it returns a named character?
Is that not a bit goofy?
You don't give CHAR->INTEGER an integer and expect
to get a character.

> (char-name 'sym) => #f
> (char-name #\b) => #f

Why is that not (char-name #\b) => 'b ?

> (char-name 'paren-close #\051) => unspecified

Now it's got two arguments instead of one.  WTF!?

> (char-name #\paren-close) => 'paren-close

Am I meant to guess that the preceding function
(macro?) call with too many arguments was actually
a definition?

>     Seems like a pretty good solution to me.

I understand it not at all.  Are you sure those
examples are correct?

-- 
     -- Keith Wright  <address@hidden>

Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
         ---  Food, Shelter, Source code.  ---