On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:14 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not an autonomous implementation designer; I am the servant of the > WG, which voted "yes" on "simple Posix", "TCP", and "UDP" and "no" on > "full Posix" and "full sockets". Feel free to propose an alternative > that satisfies these requirements.
As an example of sheer brilliance, I would point at your extremely nice proposal for how to deal with characters in a maybe-Unicode world, which WG1 agreed to. It's absolutely elegant, and does the Right Thing. The only thing I would even consider changing is that I'd like to drop the impossible char-upcase and char-downcase functions because I think it's more likely that they be used wrongly than anything else, but I understand why they're still there. This is what kind of elegance you can achieve when you deeply understand Unicode, deeply understand implementations, and really can think clearly about a variety of different implementations. Note that while you leave some things as implementation defined, you are careful to do so it a way in which extremely useful stuff can be done even so. The proposal you drafted for UDP, alas, seems to me rather like a casual one someone might have if they had a vague idea that Unicode existed, and said things like "string-upcase provides an implementation-dependent transformation of the string" and nothing else. I'll see if I can sketch out what something better might look like. Thomas
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
