Re: [Chicken-users] ditching syntax-case modules for the utf8 egg

[F. Wittenberger]

Am Dienstag, den 18.03.2008, 09:38 +0100 schrieb Peter Bex:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:08AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > >>>>> "Kon" == Kon Lovett <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> >     Kon> Summary: I want a byte-string API. I want string
> >     Kon> integrations. I want global UTF8 strings.
> > 
> > The only way this can happen is to push the UTF8 handling
> > into the core of Chicken itself.
> > 
> > However it would be contrary to Chicken's goal of keeping
> > a minimal core with extensions built on top.
> 
> How much bigger would this make the core?  I really doubt it
> would have much of an impact, and it would sure make lots of
> things a lot simpler.

My 0.02€: I believe any higher level language (at least any with run
time types or garbage collectors) ought to be able to represent unicode.
In the core of he language.

However I'm quite unsure, what the internal coding should be.  The
Larceny approach seems interesting to me.  However Shiro Kawai
experiences with gauche implementation
http://practical-scheme.net/docs/ILC2003.html
appear to encourage a multibyte approach (and would save a lot of memory
for most many languages, which have a low percentage of non-ascii
characters).  [And even for hist mother tounge, Japanese.]