On Sun 20 Mar 2011 23:12, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > For 2.1.x, things are different. I’m happy to revisit not only the > internal storage approach but also the O(1) ref/set! (the latter should > be discussed in light of the trend in other Schemes, though.)
[...] > Again, if you want to experiment with UTF-8 for internal storage, then > 2.1 is yours. ;-) At the end of all this, I also agree that we should look into UTF-8 for 2.1/2.2. The advantage of having a single string representation is good enough for me; and that representation doesn't present bit memory-usage gotchas (like our current UTF-32 if any char is non-latin1), then so much the better. It would be nice to get rid of mutexen at the same time, given that UTF-8 can't be usefully modified in place. That said, I would like to see a branch before merging into master. If the advantages are as great as we hope, it should be an obvious choice to merge the branch in as soon as things look promising. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
