Re: [Sbcl-devel] on an unsettling Lisp versus Python 'competition' or why isn't Lisp doing better here...?

[<fa...@gm...>]

On 04/12/2007, Brian Downing <bd-...@la...> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:25:07AM +0200, Juho Snellman wrote:
> > (There's also the slight problem that some of the speed increase of
> > this hack comes from completely ignoring external formats. This would
> > be ok if base-strings were defined to contain iso-8859-1, but they're
> > actually defined to contain just ascii. Ok for a quick hack, less good
> > for something included with SBCL. There's always the option of
> > defining base-char to map to 8859-1 instead, but that's the discussion
> > we've had before. I haven't measured whether this is an effect that
> > actually matters.)
>
> I would personally really like to see BASE-CHAR/STRING be able to hold
> iso-8859-1.  I've had several cases where I wanted to parse "plain ascii
> with other random binary garbage I didn't care about", and doing that
> in SBCL as it stands without taking the unicode hit is pretty painful.

Would a "SB-EXT:ASCII-CHAR =3D=3D BASE-CHAR < SB-EXT:LATIN1-CHAR <
CHARACTER" hierarchy satisfy everyone? Would there be a reason to
reject a patch that did just that? (Now, to find someone to write it,
is different).

[ Fran=E7ois-Ren=E9 =D0VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tu=
nes.org ]
You're currently going through a difficult transition period called "Life."