[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] 6.3.5 strings
- To: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] 6.3.5 strings
- From: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 19:00:18 +0200
The string escape syntax is incompatible with existing implementations.
Hex escapes may conflict with escapes implemented by implementations.
Guile turns them off by default for this reason.
But, that's not a reason not to standardize them. Too often we view
implementations and programs as immutable. I think it's a good idea to
make this particular change. I just wanted to point it out.
Along those lines, an escaped embedded newline, like:
in R6RS has the same meaning as "asdf asdfadf". It allows you to nicely
indent strings that you need to line-break for width. I suggest that
\ NEWLINE WHITESPACE*
within string literals be elided.
Later the spec mentions that implementations may generalize string=? et
al to take more than two arguments. Does the spec need to actually
mention this? The R6RS, while a good document in many ways, had a very
prohibitionist feel to it. In contrast this draft is a bit more
permissive, and to its credit, probably. In that spirit there is no
need to mention extensions, as they are always possible, unless they are
particularly recommended, for which in this case there appears no cause.
This comment applies generally.
Scheme-reports mailing list