|
the discussion so far
Matthew Flatt
(16 Jul 2005 12:41 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(20 Jul 2005 02:50 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 02:56 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(20 Jul 2005 03:15 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 03:24 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(20 Jul 2005 03:38 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 03:49 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 04:24 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 04:27 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 04:58 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 05:04 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(20 Jul 2005 02:45 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 03:56 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Jorgen Schaefer
(16 Jul 2005 13:05 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Matthew Flatt
(16 Jul 2005 13:21 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Jorgen Schaefer
(16 Jul 2005 13:58 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(17 Jul 2005 02:42 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(17 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (17 Jul 2005 03:33 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(16 Jul 2005 18:07 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(17 Jul 2005 04:49 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(17 Jul 2005 02:40 UTC)
|
||
Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> writes:
> If string<? is used only for cases where the exact order is
> irrelevant, then there is no advantage in standardizing the order at
> all.
>
> So why not say that string<? implements a total order on strings, and
> be done with it, not specifying the order at all?
I can well live with that :-)
Greetings,
-- Jorgen
PS. It might be worth the effort to try going through this SRFI
and see whether we can change the specific formulations in a way
that allows an implementation to use ASCII if it wants to, but
also allows for a correct implementation of Unicode if so desired.
Correct Unicode behavior could be "optional" the same way as
fraction or complex numbers are optional for the numeric tower
right now.
--
((email . "xxxxxx@forcix.cx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/")
(gpg . "1024D/028AF63C") (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))