3 ms·

Dudes, really... PG just released an entirely new dialect of lisp for web programming, he's mentoring about 20 startups right now, and runs Hacker News... "Oh

Dudes, really... PG just released an entirely new dialect of lisp for web programming, he's mentoring about 20 startups right now, and runs Hacker News... "Oh, and can you add Unicode support, it would only take 2 or 3 days..." I know that not having Unicode supported in your web language is inconvenient, and at times is a show-stopper. But really. Give the guy a break. If PG doesn't want to "spend a single day on character sets". Don't ask him to spend a day on character sets. If you want Unicode support in Arc, code it up and submit it.

shiro 19y ago
IMHO, it's not an issue of implementation. It's an issue of design. If PG explicitly says "ok, I don't have time to do Unicode stuff now, but my idea is that a string is a sequence of characters, regardless of how a 'character' is represented", then somebody can go ahead to change Arc Unicode-clean (it won't be much work assuming MzScheme has support of Unicode). If PG says "the language Arc (not mere an implementation) doesn't support beyond Ascii", then I feel that PG reserves that part of design (e.g. it may conflate byte-array and multibyte strings, or it may use richer character representation than unicode codepoint, such as a character object that holds the sequence of base char + modifiers, or it may hold raw byte array plus encoding info). In that case I hesitate to change Arc code without understanding PG's intention.