Re: Position of the Judean People's Front d96-mst@xxxxxx 14 Dec 1999 13:57 UTC
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) wrote: >- What's the rationale for having STRING-DO-EACH on top of > STRING-FOR-EACH? I wonder that too. I haven't got any sensible explanation. >- I really am for dumping the case-fiddling and recognition procedures > and suffixes. The way they are now, they are woefully > underspecified and thorougly anglocentric. I think they should be preserved (except for the CAPITALIZE stuff), but better specified. An easy solution is to define it in terms of the CHAR-CI procedures, CHAR-UPCASE and CHAR-DOWNCASE. >- The same holds for the inequality predicates, unless their > specifications would change to refer to the return value of > CHAR->INTEGER. I don't see the problem here. They are defined in terms of CHAR<?, and CHAR<? does refer to CHAR->INTEGER in R5RS (page 29). I think it's a good idea to define everything in terms of the character procedures in R5RS (section 6.3.4). >- I think the name STRING-CONCATENATE is badly chosen. Why not > STRING-APPEND-LIST? I wonder if it's really nessesary at all. Is there really a need to concatenate so many strings that (apply string-append list-of-strings) doesn't work? What is the lowest known limit on number of arguments to procedures in a sensible Scheme implementation? >- The "Lower-Level Procedures" are exclusively for argument checking. > They're not particularly low-level, nor are they all procedures. > This should be stated. > > The procedures contain veiled references to a condition system, and > even try to pass information to it, which it may or not be able to > use. In their present form, they should go. I do agree. >- The Knuth-Morris-Pratt stuff should also really go into a separate > SRFI. It's useful, but much more rarely than the other stuff. I think it can be useful, but it hasn't much to do with string processing. The SUBSTRING? procedure is probably better implemented with Boyer-Moore. Remove the KMP stuff from this SRFI and perhaps make a separate SRFI with it. >- Oh, and I vote for bagging CAPITALIZE-STRING[!]. Me too.