On 06/06/2014 10:07 AM, james anderson wrote:
good afternoon,I've implemented the default collation algorithm, and the functions
On 6 Jun 2014, at 16:23, Krzysztof Drewniak <firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm working on improving SBCL's Unicode support through the Google
Summer of Code. To make my project more useful, I'd like to know what
Unicode (or possibly internationalization)-related features you'd like
to see already implemented in SBCL, so you wouldn't have to roll your own.
So far, I have implemented (on an experimental branch)
- The standard Unicode sorting algorithm ...
What other similar improvements would make things easier for you as an
SBCL user? Please let me know.
support for collating sequences in string comparison functions.
SB-UNICODE:UNICODE< (and <=, >,>= ...), which use the DUCET to collate
strings. I have not implemented locale-specific collations, please let
me know if those would be useful for you.
the general use case is any application which must tailor results to a request-specific collation sequence.
this is the situation for a service which works with annotated data, such as xml and rdf.
I think that the standard
allows me to drop SB-UNICODE:UNICODE< in as STRING<, but that would
break a lot of things (like (string< "A" "a") => T)), so it should
probably be discussed more.
while a drop-in would offer advantages for general internationalization, an alternative predicate which required a local object or a language tag as a designator would likely be sufficient in our case, as the intended locale tends to be specific to the request.
I'm also considering implementing a "Unicode string" type that would
allow Common Lisp functions to work in a Unicode-conforming fashion
transparently, would that work?
i am not sure how that is not a contradiction, but would be curious to hear.
best regards, from berlin,