chicken-hackers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] CHICKEN in production


From: Aleksej Saushev
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CHICKEN in production
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:36:24 +0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.1299999999999999 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix)

John Cowan <address@hidden> writes:

> Michele La Monaca scripsit:
>> 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.

It has no significance for what exactly?

> The only reason
> to allow NUL is in situations where strings are being used as
> bytevectors, but we *have* both blobs and u8vectors.

This is plain false.

My experience with Forth implementations that append NUL terminator
is that this doesn't bring enough gain while adding more obstacles
for string processing. You end up using conventional Forth strings
(represented by pointer-length pairs) and NUL-terminated strings
(e.g. for FFI purpose) as different concepts coexisting side by side.

Allowing NUL within strings allows better handling of some protocols that
are text-oriented yet use NUL as field separator.


-- 
HE CE3OH...




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]