"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
> >> Unfortunately, probably not true. Current Mule representation
> >> has probably reached the end of the line; we're running out of
> >> code space.
>
> Hrvoje> But who cares about that? You're not supposed to be
> Hrvoje> relying on the value char-int returns, right? Right. The
>
> Well, yes, but in practice people do rely on that value;
Who, and what for?
> often that value being more reliable than a true character is the
> reason they use it.
How can it be more reliable than the "true character"? If there is
something our API is lacking which makes Lisp coders use char-int
where it's not appropriate, we should by all means improve the API.
> I would be happy to break char-int and int-char beyond repair,
> personally, and spend the effort to make characters reliable.
I understand and concur with the latter sentiment, but not with the
former. Sorry.
> People who care about efficiency and transparency (ie, extensibility
> and maintainability) care about internal representation. I'm sure
> you could cobble up a big-buffer package out of Lisp code, but you
> would rightly consider that unacceptably fragile and complicated.
> It's not quite so bad with UCS-4, I admit; we could get half of that
> space with a not too horrible hack. But it would be a hack, it
> would hurt transparency,
All of Mule is a non-transparent horrible hack. Hacking internal
representation of characters is ideologically acceptable because it is
not visible to the user. The same goes for the internal
representation of Lisp objects, and for a bunch of other things.
Simplicity of interface over simplicity of implementation!
> So it really comes down to whether your "rest of us" is bigger than
> mine.
Hey, are now going to say that the Chinese need UCS-4, which will
effectively end the discussion? :-)
Seriously, it's not only about numbers, but about principles. I would
hate to see Mule screwing us all by taking the bit from integers. As
I said before, I don't like seeing Mule as an all-important aspect of
XEmacs.
> That's my last word in this thread on what we "should" do; we (both
> of us) are just going in circles. When I have something usable to
> show, I'll be back, of course.
It's easy to come up with "something usable to show". What's *really*
hard is to come up with a good design and a good implementation to
match it. And I can't provide a definite answer to that any more than
you can. :-(