Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

strings draft Tom Lord (22 Jan 2004 04:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (22 Jan 2004 09:46 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (22 Jan 2004 17:32 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2004 05:03 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 00:31 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (24 Jan 2004 03:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 03:27 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 04:18 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 04:49 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 18:47 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 22:16 UTC)
Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 09:58 UTC)
Strings, one last detail. bear (30 Jan 2004 21:12 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Shiro Kawai (30 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (31 Jan 2004 00:13 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (31 Jan 2004 20:26 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (31 Jan 2004 20:42 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (01 Feb 2004 02:29 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (01 Feb 2004 02:44 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (01 Feb 2004 07:53 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (26 Jan 2004 19:04 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 20:12 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 20:40 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 23:39 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Ken Dickey (27 Jan 2004 04:33 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Shiro Kawai (27 Jan 2004 05:12 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Tom Lord (27 Jan 2004 05:23 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char bear (27 Jan 2004 08:35 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (27 Jan 2004 08:33 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Ken Dickey (27 Jan 2004 15:43 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (27 Jan 2004 19:06 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (22 Jan 2004 19:05 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 01:53 UTC)
READ-OCTET (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2004 06:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (23 Jan 2004 07:04 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (23 Jan 2004 07:20 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 00:02 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 01:59 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 02:22 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (26 Jan 2004 02:35 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 02:48 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 03:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 04:57 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 04:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (24 Jan 2004 02:21 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:10 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:29 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:44 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:53 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:04 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 03:16 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 02:35 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:49 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 02:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:13 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 03:19 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (23 Jan 2004 19:31 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 02:22 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (06 Feb 2004 23:30 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (06 Feb 2004 23:33 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (09 Feb 2004 01:45 UTC)
specifying source encoding (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (09 Feb 2004 02:51 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (09 Feb 2004 03:39 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:12 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 03:28 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:44 UTC)
Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (23 Jan 2004 17:02 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] bear (23 Jan 2004 17:56 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 18:50 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Per Bothner (23 Jan 2004 18:56 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 20:26 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Per Bothner (23 Jan 2004 20:57 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 21:44 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 20:07 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 21:22 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 22:38 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (24 Jan 2004 06:48 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 18:41 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (24 Jan 2004 19:34 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 21:48 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (23 Jan 2004 21:47 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 23:22 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (25 Jan 2004 01:03 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (25 Jan 2004 03:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (25 Jan 2004 06:59 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (25 Jan 2004 07:16 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 23:52 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (27 Jan 2004 00:30 UTC)

Re: strings draft Alex Shinn 23 Jan 2004 03:28 UTC

At 22 Jan 2004 19:12:28 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> So my proposal is: drop the char-ci* functions entirely.  Add locale
> arguments to the string-ci* functions.  And then say:
>
> "Two scheme identifiers are the same if they match with the string-ci*
> function in the locale returned by (scheme-standard-locale).  It is
> guaranteed that in this locale, a..z are not distinguished by
> string-ci* from A..Z, and that all other characters required to exist
> by the standard are distinguished from these and each other."

Scheme identifiers are case-sensitive, it's just the reader that by
default performs a case-mapping.  From R5RS:

     (eq? 'bitBlt (string->symbol "bitBlt"))
               ==>  #f

So to be consistent with this we should change the paragraph under
lexical conventions which reads:

  Upper and lower case forms of a letter are never distinguished except
  within character and string constants.  For example, `Foo' is the same
  identifier as `FOO', and #x1AB is the same number as #X1ab.

to something like

  Upper and lower case forms of a letter are never distinguished except
  within character and string constants.  For example, `Foo' is the same
  identifier as `FOO', and #x1AB is the same number as #X1ab.  The case
  mapping or comparison procedures used for this use
  (scheme-standard-locale) as the locale argument.

--
Alex