New draft (#7) of SRFI 152: String Library (reduced) Arthur A. Gleckler (27 Sep 2017 01:02 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#7) of SRFI 152: String Library (reduced)
Arthur A. Gleckler
(27 Sep 2017 16:51 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#7) of SRFI 152: String Library (reduced)
Shiro Kawai
(02 Oct 2017 11:22 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#7) of SRFI 152: String Library (reduced)
Arthur A. Gleckler
(03 Oct 2017 02:48 UTC)
|
Small fixes to tests (Re: New draft (#7) of SRFI 152)
Sudarshan S Chawathe
(04 Oct 2017 18:08 UTC)
|
Re: Small fixes to tests (Re: New draft (#7) of SRFI 152)
John Cowan
(04 Oct 2017 18:34 UTC)
|
New draft (#7) of SRFI 152: String Library (reduced) Arthur A. Gleckler 27 Sep 2017 01:02 UTC
I've just published draft #7 of SRFI 152. It was submitted by John Cowan, author of the SRFI. <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-152/> Here are John's comments on the draft: The main change from the previous last call is the removal of the optional procedures. While the procedures themselves are relevant to the theme of the SRFI, R7RS-small does not have satisfactory support for making parts of an interface optional, because there is no portable way for a module to extend the set of features. The casing, UTF conversion, and normalization procedures by themselves don't make a coherent SRFI, especially given that R7RS-small supports casing and UTF-8 conversion already, so the whole matter will be left to some possible future Unicode SRFI. In addition, I've made all of Sven Hartrumpf's minor changes, and extended the rationale for `string-concatenate-reverse` as follows: # This procedure is useful when constructing procedures # that accumulate character data into lists of string # buffers, and wish to convert the accumulated data into a # single string when done. The optional <var>end</var> # argument accommodates that use case by allowing the # final buffer to be only partially full without having to # copy it a second time, as <code>string-take</code> would # require. Shiro Kawai requested the removal of the reference to buffers, which I have done. Here's the diff: <https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-152/compare/8ecd5acd9bf083142b4d3fe29287012287fb0793...3f0dcafebc8909e8c2a18922fa274326be494845> Regards, SRFI Editor