SRFI like cut (SRFI-26) but with ordered arguments Jakub T. Jankiewicz (14 Aug 2021 07:30 UTC)
Re: SRFI like cut (SRFI-26) but with ordered arguments Shiro Kawai (14 Aug 2021 08:57 UTC)
Unicode lambda revisited Lassi Kortela (14 Aug 2021 09:45 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Lassi Kortela (14 Aug 2021 09:52 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (15 Aug 2021 06:17 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Peter (15 Aug 2021 17:21 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (15 Aug 2021 17:28 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Vladimir Nikishkin (16 Aug 2021 07:37 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2021 10:58 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2021 12:09 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Jeronimo Pellegrini (16 Aug 2021 12:54 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2021 13:38 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Jeronimo Pellegrini (16 Aug 2021 14:58 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Jakub T. Jankiewicz (16 Aug 2021 19:11 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited John Cowan (16 Aug 2021 15:49 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2021 19:56 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2021 23:26 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited John Cowan (17 Aug 2021 03:40 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Shiro Kawai (17 Aug 2021 04:15 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited John Cowan (17 Aug 2021 15:04 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2021 15:34 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited John Cowan (17 Aug 2021 19:00 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2021 19:22 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Shiro Kawai (17 Aug 2021 20:40 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2021 20:49 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited John Cowan (18 Aug 2021 23:13 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (19 Aug 2021 16:03 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Daphne Preston-Kendal (19 Aug 2021 16:19 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (19 Aug 2021 16:49 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Daphne Preston-Kendal (16 Aug 2021 21:03 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited John Cowan (16 Aug 2021 21:37 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2021 05:04 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Peter (16 Aug 2021 16:58 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Arthur A. Gleckler (16 Aug 2021 17:00 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2021 17:36 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Arthur A. Gleckler (16 Aug 2021 17:56 UTC)
Re: Unicode lambda revisited Vladimir Nikishkin (17 Aug 2021 04:37 UTC)

Re: Unicode lambda revisited Daphne Preston-Kendal 19 Aug 2021 16:19 UTC

On 19 Aug 2021, at 18:03, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation.  When we look at the future, it would be good if istring? is guaranteed to return #t for string literals.  This way, we would get rid of two lexical syntaxes otherwise needed (and which would be a wart in the Scheme standard because string literals can also be considered immutable by portable code).  I think this is an important point.

Disagreement from my side, at least as long as implementations exist which actually allow mutating literals. (This is a majority of them at the moment! https://doc.scheme.org/surveys/ImmutableStrings/)

istring? should never return #t on a string that might change under my nose later.

Daphne