From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Using libunistring for string comparisons et al Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:50:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <336042.33326.qm@web37901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <878vwgmhah.fsf@netris.org> <511668.33680.qm@web37902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87sjuokniq.fsf@netris.org> <118142.11911.qm@web37907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87ipvjlvgj.fsf@netris.org> <87lj0bi4qs.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301483605 14182 80.91.229.12 (30 Mar 2011 11:13:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:13:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 30 13:13:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4tKx-0004M6-Gs for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:13:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39403 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4tKw-00082F-Ry for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:13:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33689 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4tKu-00081z-8x for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:13:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4tKs-0002zt-U4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:13:16 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:51249 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4tKs-0002zm-QM; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:13:14 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA3D4641; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:15:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=d5Bl3Hg3E6bY4Y0jtaiHvDyviv8=; b=TSEjOv QFt0aYnkAKlAiuHEh/S/9YiA/9EyFxVVjgNsLwM79r3NeOF2YnLhqYiqeVNREplt yZ4gjl2RDzDaYFIHt5carEIwtuKFoLcHgRuktLrpW8pOZvo9gkJ3EYibJsRtPtJD iQ5+clPLyXTcUAJftfkdSi1gmevASmqg4oifk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=S4uFtittY7kkYjHBmaK1MDCi4zYr/DA2 vux5v/hAv2f6j5ftzzeXs6dXj0fYa30xeWrDgm/i/2KdLgbaKGKU1PP12zk/tnfD PO8PGCb2FIjENyzAYVfBNQdJ3I9Yl0OsVCnIXETWb3Go7i1xib7+y40eO/2bJqnq xvqKmmwTu6E= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE41C463F; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C35E1463D; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:14:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87lj0bi4qs.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:06:51 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F257B9B0-5ABE-11E0-AFDB-E8AB60295C12-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:12075 Archived-At: On Sat 19 Mar 2011 15:06, Mark H Weaver writes: > Let me ask you this: why would you oppose changing the scm_c_ functions > to use UTF-8 by default? If you're comfortable with ASCII-only names, > then UTF-8 will work fine for you, since ASCII strings are unchanged in > UTF-8. This is true. Well, I think UTF-8 is the Right Thing, but it is complicated. This discussion reminds me of the luserspace problem from Worse is Better ;-) I think I was clinging to ASCII because C is ASCII. No one is clamoring for "if" in Spanish, much less katakana identifiers. I was thinking that since we could not reap the benefits, why bother paying the cost. But you have a good point that that might change in the future; who knows? If we do switch to UTF-8 in 2.2, though, then there's no real cost; there's only benefits. So perhaps we should just stop worrying about potential costs, and learn to love the benefits (!), and just do the UTF-8 thing. I'm still being a little cagey in these replies as I haven't gotten to the end of the thread yet :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/