Re: Wide strings

[Neil Jerram]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>>> Do we need to talk more about what needs to be accomplished? Do we
>>> need a complete specification? Do we need a vote on if it is a good
>>> idea?
>>
>> I think you're going in the right direction. More importantly, although
>> I can't speak for them, Neil and Ludo seem to think so too.
>
> Yes, as far as I'm concerned.  I know you're probably more knowledgeable
> than I am on this issue and I'm confident.

For the record, I'm happy too - in fact I'm excited that Guile is
finally going to have wide strings.  Technically I think I'm less of
an expert here than everyone else who has commented, so I'm happy to
defer to the apparent consensus.  I see that Clinton's idea goes
beyond that, but (IIUC) it looks like we doesn't lose anything by
going with Latin-1/UCS-32 now, and then Clinton's idea could be added
later; is that correct?

Regards,
        Neil