-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/02/2012 01:07 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:

>> So I think it's more consistent to have digit-value but
>> consider it a fairly minor issue.
>
> Your arguments suggest to me that string->number should be extended to Unicode (if that's supported by the implementation), and digit-value dropped from the standard.

I think it's worth mentioning that if the implementation supports
exciting beyond-ASCII (not just Unicode) digits, their numeric value (as
defined in whatever standard defines the character set, such as the
Unicode numeric value proprety) needs to be supported by the
implementation, for consistency.

I'm ambivalent about digit-value in WG1; certainly it needs to exist in
some form as part of a WG2 "character properties" thingy if it's not in
WG1. char-numeric? certainly seems to be of limited use without it, but
is the char-numeric?/digit-value pair actually useful at all in the
scope of WG1, given string->number?

>
> Marc
>

ABS

- --
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/xkh4ACgkQRgz/WHNxCGpXrACfRZuho1k/05KVJHoIKWCtHztO
JywAnjTAJhS7E9w5yOcBRQvsf/qd6CXn
=K+NV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports