Re: [Chicken-users] ditching syntax-case modules for the utf8 egg

[Tobia Conforto]

John Cowan wrote:
> Tobia Conforto scripsit:
> > This is more or less how other languages, such as Python, solved  
> > the   issue.  Two kinds of strings, byte and unicode, and  
> > overloading a few string operations to have a slightly different  
> > meaning when called on either, computing byte length vs. character  
> > length.
>
> And Python 3.0 is ditching this solution in favor of byte strings  
> and Unicode strings instead, because it's unworkable in the long  
> run.  In Py3k, you'll write b"..." for a byte string and "..." for a  
> Unicode string; u"..." will be a deprecated synonym.  Python 2.6,  
> the bridge release, will support b"..." to assist transition.

So they're ditching {"byte", u"unicode"} strings in favor of {b"byte",  
"unicode"} ones?  What are they ditching exactly?  It seems to me  
they're just switching the default.


Graham Fawcett wrote:
> I agree 100% that Unicode support should be core. And on that note  
> I'll stop muddying the waters and give my +1 to copying utf8 into  
> the core and adding a suite of byte- functions.


+1 best solution overall


Tobia