On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 18:04 -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> I don't see where the normalization form comes into this.  As things are,
> (string-length (string #\A #\x301)) is 2 and (string-length (string
> #\xC1)) is 1, even though they normalize to the same thing in either
> normalization form.  So the current semantics don't depend on a NF;
> rather they depend on not automatically applying any particular NF.

I would be rather upset if

(string=? (string #\A #\x301) (string #\xc1)) ==> #f

These strings have the same value, and if string=? does not detect
it, I would say that string=? has a bug in its implementation.  At the
very least, string=? in that case is not an implementation of any
string comparison conforming with the Unicode standard.

Likewise I would be upset if

(= (string-length (string #\A #\x301))
   (string-length (string #\xc1))) ==> #f

for the same reason.

			Bear

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