Re: [Chicken-hackers] Numbers egg interaction with other compiled code.

[Tony Sidaway]

On 10/24/09, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> This is the story:
>
> 1) The character data type can handle the full range of Unicode characters
> from #\u0 to #\u10FFFF.
>
> 2) Literal strings containing \u escapes encode those escapes as UTF-8,
> independently of the input encoding in use.
>
> 3) Otherwise, literal strings just contain the bytes provided by the
> current encoding.
>
> 4) Using string or string-set! or any similar operation to put characters
> into a string will chop them to the lowest 8 bits.

Thanks for your patience.

I'm probably the worst person for not actually reading the manual, but
is this documented in the manual?

I would probably make different (and potentially very costly)
implementation decisions.  The method above takes liberties with the
vagueness of R5RS ("Strings are sequences of characters")  but it's
probably a sensible compromise and very much in the spirit of Chicken.

It's a killer for non-English alphabets but there are enough
implementations to go round.