On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Fawcett scripsit:
>
> > So, a byte string would simply be a string with a null auxilliary vector.
>
> That doesn't work. A byte-string is not a sequence of characters from
> the ASCII repertoire, it's a sequence of characters from the repertoire
> {ASCII set, characters numbered 129 through 255 with uncertain semantics}.
> Well, except on EBCDIC machines, where the repertoire is that of some
> unspecified EBCDIC code page.
Right. But I had taken "byte string" to mean, "string of one-byte
characters of unspecified encoding; possibly a vector of octets that
don't represent characters at all". Under this model, a null auxiliary
vector would indicate the lack of wide characters, nothing more.
Graham
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
