Hi,
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the encoding of a string (or buffer or "character" array
> (or subsequence thereof)) needs to be explicit;
RnRS doesn't specify any encoding. R5RS Section 6.3.5 just says
"Strings are sequences of characters." R6RS Section 1 goes further by
saying "Strings are finite sequences of characters with fixed length and
thus represent arbitrary Unicode texts." None of them refers to
"encoding".
> All these programs chose not to expose many conversion functions
> in the programming interface. Instead, they expose few functions,
> each with an encoding parameter. That is surely a cleaner design.
Yes, that's probably a good idea. At any rate, we only have
`scm_to_locale_string ()' currently so it's not too late to add a single
function with an encoding parameter in lieu of the proposed
`scm_to_{utf8,utf16,utf32,ucs4,...}_string ()'.
But first of all, one needs to implement Unicode support. ;-)
Thanks,
Ludovic.
