Hi Mike, Mike Gran <spk...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:57 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello! >> >> "Michael Gran" <spk...@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> > The branch, master has been updated >> > via 77332b21a01fac906ae4707426e00f01e62c0415 (commit) >> > from e5dc27b86d0eaa470f92cdaa9f4ed2a961338c49 (commit) >> >> Oops, I hadn't realized this was in `master'. Was it intended? (I >> don't remember seeing a discussion, but I may have skipped it.) >> > > It was discussed after a fashion. This is a precursor to the tree > that Andy reviewed, and he seemed to be okay with me committing some of > it.[1] With all the exciting stuff going on, I was having a little > trouble getting some mindshare. [2] [3] So I pushed this one since > it was kind of your idea anyway. [4] Oh right, thanks for reminding me! And sorry for having been unresponsive lately (too much good work going on and too little spare time!). >> Does it have a user-visible effect? > > No change at all in the character names it will accept. A minor > change on the output: writing U+0012 now gives #\ff over #\np. > Certainly the removal of EBCDIC would be a user-visible effect if > there were an EBCDIC user. Right, it probably won't hurt many people, so that's OK. Nevertheless, it's probably better to mention it in `NEWS', what do you think? >> > * libguile/print.c (iprin1): use new func scm_i_charname >> > >> > * libguile/read.c (scm_read_character): use new func >> > scm_i_charname_to_num >> > >> > * libguile/chars.c (scm_i_charname): new function >> > (scm_i_charname_to_char): new function >> > (scm_charnames, scm_charnums): removed >> >> These removals are incompatible in theory, but probably they don't >> warrant a `NEWS' entry. Thoughts? > > If they were API, they weren't well documented as such. They look like > internal information to me. Definitely. It's just that they lacked the `_i_' prefix, which in theory means that it's public and that we won't change it without notice. Let's assume removing these two is harmless. Thanks, Ludo'.
