Re: so... string work

Tom Lord <lord-1tv/[email protected]> writes:

>     > From: Matthew Dempsky <[email protected]>
>
>     > Hm, I guess I should move the core scaffolding I've written into
>     > strings-reps.[ch] then... (I was thinking at first strings would
>     > suffice as a purely libscm type, but I guess not.)
>
> Construction and locking of strings definately goes in reps/.
>
> Extraction definately goes in libscm/.
>
> That strings are vtable objects is probably a reps/ issue.
>
> Standard procedures (e.g., STRING-LENGTH) should be in libscm.
>
> Sound about right?
>
> (That's not a rhetorical question, just a hint about what I think --
> you're the one fussing with the details of it.)

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking about doing (now).

I don't feel like writing another email just to reply to the proper
thread about this, but I just made the change so (eqv? #\U+0001
#\ctl-a) => #t, but should it be #\ctl-A or both or should we just
make the table lookup case insensitive so that #\ctl-a == #\ctl-A ==
#\CTL-A (and consequently #\newline == #\NEWLINE etc)?

-jivera