Re: [Chicken-hackers] CHICKEN in production

[Michele La Monaca]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:43 PM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
> Michele La Monaca scripsit:
>
>> I must confess I didn't read the entire thread. But, what exactly buys
>> us barring NUL in strings
>
> Part of the design of Chicken is close integration with C.  The ability
> to share strings with C rather than constantly copying them as they pass
> from Scheme to C and back would be a great enhancement to integration,
> as this copying can be very expensive in string-oriented programs that
> need to use external C libraries for ease of development or efficiency.

I am sure there are better approaches than wildly forbidding NULs in
strings. Some of them have been discussed already in this thread, I
think.

>> other than limiting the usefulness of the type and its powerful API
>> (while breaking a lot of things along the way)? Also, NUL is a valid
>> UTF-8 character.
>
> Valid but useless.  It has no significance whatever.

Sure? Just one off the top of my head: `find -print0'

"print the full file name on the standard output, followed by a null
character (instead of the newline character that -print uses).  This
allows file names that contain newlines or other types of white space
to be correctly interpreted by programs that process the find output.
This option corresponds to the -0 option of xargs."

Regards,
Michele