Comments on: Python vs Scheme: strings http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29 A Pythoneer's adventures with Scheme, Clojure and a whole lot more. ^_^ Sat, 22 May 2010 22:09:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: troels http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29/comment-page-1#comment-48 troels Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:43:20 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29#comment-48 I'm fairly new to lisp/scheme myself, and seeing your Python-comparisons made a lot of sense to me. Please post more like this. I’m fairly new to lisp/scheme myself, and seeing your Python-comparisons made a lot of sense to me. Please post more like this.

]]> By: John Cowan http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29/comment-page-1#comment-46 John Cowan Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:50:33 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29#comment-46 I should also mention that Chicken characters cover the full Unicode range, but how strings are interpreted depends on the egg: by default they are Latin-1 (and Unicode escapes in strings outside the Latin-1 range produce bizarre results), but if you load the utf-8 egg, they are treated as UTF-8, with consequent effects on string-length, string-ref, string-set!, etc. I should also mention that Chicken characters cover the full Unicode range, but how strings are interpreted depends on the egg: by default they are Latin-1 (and Unicode escapes in strings outside the Latin-1 range produce bizarre results), but if you load the utf-8 egg, they are treated as UTF-8, with consequent effects on string-length, string-ref, string-set!, etc.

]]> By: Hans Nowak http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29/comment-page-1#comment-31 Hans Nowak Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:42:07 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29#comment-31 I think it's obvious when you think of "+" as "adding two things together" (rather than "a commutative mathematical operation"). I think it’s obvious when you think of “+” as “adding two things together” (rather than “a commutative mathematical operation”).

]]> By: John Nowak http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29/comment-page-1#comment-30 John Nowak Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:13:31 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29#comment-30 How is using '+' for a non-commutative operation obvious? Here's what's not obvious: >>> a = "foo" >>> b = "bar" >>> a + b == b + a False How is using ‘+’ for a non-commutative operation obvious? Here’s what’s not obvious:

>>> a = “foo”
>>> b = “bar”
>>> a + b == b + a
False

]]> By: John Cowan http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29/comment-page-1#comment-29 John Cowan Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:08:48 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/29#comment-29 The reason R5RS doesn't have string-{up,down}case is probably that it was assumed those are just lifts of char-{up-down}case over the string, and in ASCII they are. In the real (Unicode) world, alas, they are not; for example, the uppercase form of "ß" is "SS". Consequently, R6RS includes proper string casing functions and warns against using the character functions. The reason R5RS doesn’t have string-{up,down}case is probably that it was assumed those are just lifts of char-{up-down}case over the string, and in ASCII they are. In the real (Unicode) world, alas, they are not; for example, the uppercase form of “ß” is “SS”. Consequently, R6RS includes proper string casing functions and warns against using the character functions.

]]>