Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
> Hm. Wasn't wchar_t on Windows 16 bits? Do they use UTF-16 there?
Yes, they do nowadays. Of course, so do the JVM and the CLR.
> The internal representation is a different issue compared to the
> external encoding. It would be nice if we could separate these two
> th
>> Well, actually we might as well support several: ASCII/Latin-1, UTF-8
>> and UCS-2/UCS-4. Without UTF-8 it would just be a variable
>> element-size option. But I agree that this doesn't make maintenance
>> any easier... Let's think some more about this. We don't have to
>> decide right now.
>
>
HI Peter,
Peter Bex writes:
> This seems like a good idea. However, could you also swap the two
> code blocks? A double negation (#ifndef NO_...) can be confusing, and
> by making it read "#ifdef NO_POSIX_POLL" (I'd probably drop the
> HAVE_ prefix, as that's more idiomatic AFAICT), it becomes
Felix Winkelmann scripsit:
> Well, actually we might as well support several: ASCII/Latin-1, UTF-8
> and UCS-2/UCS-4. Without UTF-8 it would just be a variable
> element-size option. But I agree that this doesn't make maintenance
> any easier... Let's think some more about this. We don't have to
>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 01:27:58PM +0100, Andy Bennett wrote:
> It may even be possible to do some parts of the work, such as splitting
> srfis out of core, in 4.X as these will not require .scm sourcecode
> changes; only metadata changes.
I'm not sure about this. We could do that while 5.0 is be
Hi,
> I'd love to hear from some of the people using CHICKEN in their business
> or for other Serious Projects (Kristian? Ivan? Andy?) how painful this
> would be for them.
After taking some time to familiarise myself with them, these all sound
like big and important changes.
It took us a long t
Hi,
> The Chicken wiki still has an index of Chicken 3 eggs, although I do
> think chicken-setup is no longer operational.
> Perhaps now would be a good time to clean the wiki of vestigial
> references to 2 & 3.
AIUI, this documentation is preserved for posterity and in case anyone
wants to forwa
Am 18.08.2014 17:06, schrieb Peter Bex:
Yeah, we're pretty thinly spread right now.
I think calling this CHICKEN 5 may be a good idea. I don't know for
sure though: adding backwards compatibility may actually be easier
in this situation. Ripping out the SRFIs from core should be pretty
simple
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Felix Winkelmann <
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Bex
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR #1142 and upcoming changes
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:02:51 +0200
>
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:59:58AM +0400, Yaroslav Tsarko wrote:
> >> On 19.08.201
From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR #1142 and upcoming changes
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:02:51 +0200
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:59:58AM +0400, Yaroslav Tsarko wrote:
>> On 19.08.2014 19:24, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
>> >
>> >Sounds like a good first step, even though I personally wo
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:59:58AM +0400, Yaroslav Tsarko wrote:
> On 19.08.2014 19:24, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> >
> >Sounds like a good first step, even though I personally would prefer
> >UCS-4 strings (constant lookup + modification and so on). But that
> >seems to be unpopular, AFAICT...
>
>
On 19.08.2014 19:24, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
Sounds like a good first step, even though I personally would prefer
UCS-4 strings (constant lookup + modification and so on). But that
seems to be unpopular, AFAICT...
Wouldn`t that be possible to specify which internal string encoding is
used by
12 matches
Mail list logo
