[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Numbers egg interaction with other compiled code.

From: Tony Sidaway
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Numbers egg interaction with other compiled code.
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:22:21 +0100

On 10/24/09, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
> This is the story:
> 1) The character data type can handle the full range of Unicode characters
> from #\u0 to #\u10FFFF.
> 2) Literal strings containing \u escapes encode those escapes as UTF-8,
> independently of the input encoding in use.
> 3) Otherwise, literal strings just contain the bytes provided by the
> current encoding.
> 4) Using string or string-set! or any similar operation to put characters
> into a string will chop them to the lowest 8 bits.

Thanks for your patience.

I'm probably the worst person for not actually reading the manual, but
is this documented in the manual?

I would probably make different (and potentially very costly)
implementation decisions.  The method above takes liberties with the
vagueness of R5RS ("Strings are sequences of characters")  but it's
probably a sensible compromise and very much in the spirit of Chicken.

It's a killer for non-English alphabets but there are enough
implementations to go round.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]