🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <756@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

What he says.  O'Keefe makes some strong points about the complexities
of case conversion in various languages.  I suppose case conversion on
individual characters is too prevalent to drop it in favor of "word" or
"sentence" case conversion!  I haven't done any significant text processing
in CL, so can't comment on the "correct" practice.

>I think the Common Lisp character abstractions aren't quite right either.
>Trying to treat control-super-hyper-X as a single character is not quite
>right.  (How many versions of Common Lisp have (> (char-bits-limit 1)) ?)

The real reason for having "char-bits" in CL has more to do with a certain
Lisp company than with sound technical reasons.  Thus the "fancy" characters
are not required to be storable into strings, which limits their usefulness!
Still, most commercial CL impls *do* have (> char-bits-limit 1), but the
main reason seems to be that there are usually about 24 bits available in
the standard representations, but only 7 are actually needed for a code, so
there's nothing to lose by saying that some of the remaining bits are 
"char-bits".  All pretty sad, actually...

>If characters are represented by integers, then it is straightforward
>to program up missing operations.  If characters are a separate data type,
>but that data type is missing many of its "natural" operations, then you
>wind up with murky code changing types all over the place.

A separate data type with conversion functions doesn't imply murky code,
if the missing operations have been written to keep all the murkiness to
themselves.

							stan shebs
							shebs@cs.utah.edu