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: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:31:30 +0100 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300538502 21591 80.91.229.12 (19 Mar 2011 12:41:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:41:42 +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 Sat Mar 19 13:41:38 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 1Q0vTM-0003gM-G7 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:41:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42472 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q0vTL-0004Zj-N3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:41:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44417 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q0vSp-0004K9-M2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:41:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0vSo-0004wk-2g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:41:03 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:52562 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0vSn-0004wW-Uz; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA51F3EFA; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:42:36 -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=+PrfCyJd+qMYm4hCOxAP9F9XaR8=; b=hUKx/4 vU3cwQYsylCyFi0gi+MhmH5GsksdgtKWc5l9TWOK5jheasF55J/zuUD/cN5WdfqH 98FNUPce+nZDORNzKf2AF7RX9IoPJOU5J6ov4WkvOLMsiEiTsD2s5W7OCgPSkkZZ HnENc8nChVCe3QFtmm8zx56SRuK60q3u5IjhY= 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=Ik2KSH9k0oppNzbQoHLHA5DqwP54LIx7 DFzQmNFH/wxZ/EvXobURVff5Wv9lTl732/h9y3wGFo8BpagzaYz7jLT+fZR7srMu RCdSsRfOwLsvttzHvcg3GqkKfsikwm/278enGXKdL5ddGZKh/4Bi9EpniL5B/fhd ltGEkoDvL0Y= 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 7717A3EF7; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:42:32 -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 4A98E3EF6; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:42:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ipvjlvgj.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:12:28 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5BD54FDE-5226-11E0-A339-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:11912 Archived-At: Greetings, On Wed 16 Mar 2011 02:12, Mark H Weaver writes: > Ludovic, Andy and I discussed this on IRC, and came to the conclusion > that UTF-8 should be the encoding assumed by functions such as > scm_c_define, scm_c_define_gsubr, scm_c_define_gsubr_with_generic, > scm_c_export, scm_c_define_module, scm_c_resolve_module, > scm_c_use_module, etc. Can we step back a little and revisit this decision? Clearly, we need to specify the encoding for these procedures, and have it not be locale encoding. However I don't think we would be breaking anyone's code if we simply restricted it to 7-bit ASCII. I am quite sensitive to the "justice" argument -- that we not restrict the names our users give to Scheme identifiers, or the characters they use in their strings. But these values typically come from literals in C source code, which has no portable superset of ASCII. Furthermore, such a default would not restrict our users at all -- they can always use the non-_c_ variants with a symbol explicitly constructed with (e.g.) scm_from_utf8_symbol. Finally, users are moving away from these functions anyway. The thing to do now is to write Scheme, not C: and in Scheme we do the Right Thing. So let's not let this particular consideration weigh too heavily on our choice of character encoding. * * * And on the meta-level... I'm really happy with Guile 2.0, that we've got more traffic on the mailing list, more contributors (like yourself!), more folks on IRC. This is all fantastic. We need to take advantage of this energy, but also not be overwhelmed by it ;-) Important discussions should still take place on the mailing list, with due calmness and consideration. This allows everyone affected to participate, whether or not they use IRC and happen to be online then. Also, just from a personal perspective, I find that I think much better when looking at a message-mode buffer than at an IRC window ;-) Back to this question, though: I don't know what to think yet. I'll read the thread again. Best regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/