Re: [Sbcl-bugs] two possible SBCL bugs concerning #\ARABIC-INDIC_DIGIT_ZERO

[Stas B. <sta...@gm...>]

Robert Boyer <rob...@gm...> writes:

> As best I read the Common Lisp spec, SBCL should not have
>
>     (digit-char-p #\ARABIC-INDIC_DIGIT_ZERO) => 0
>
> but rather digit-char-p should here return NIL.
>
> Similarly, as I best I read the Common Lisp spec,
>
>    (set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\ARABIC-INDIC_DIGIT_ZERO (function
> error))
>
> should not cause an error, as it does:
>
> debugger invoked on a SIMPLE-ERROR:
> SUB-CHAR must not be a decimal digit: #\ARABIC-INDIC_DIGIT_ZERO
>
>
> For what it is worth, I am running
>
>    SBCL 1.2.12.66-e4a2d88
>
> under Mac OS X.
>
> Bob
>
> P. S.  I do not claim any authority, I'm just and only a reader, but I do
> believe that CCL behaves
> differently in these two cases, even while agreeing with SBCL that
> (char-code #\ARABIC-INDIC_DIGIT_ZERO) is 1632.
That's not a bug, that's a feature. You may not agree with this feature
(as I don't), but it's a feature nevertheless.

-- 
With best regards, Stas.