Subject: Re: strings and characters From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 2000/03/21 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3162629683063483@naggum.no> * Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> | Wouldn't those characters be of type CHARACTER? Mustn't a vector | specialized to type CHARACTER be able to hold all objects of type | CHARACTER? Isn't such a vector a subtype of STRING? what was the _intent_ of removing string-char and making fonts and bits implementation-defined? has that intent been carried forward all the way? | Where does the standard ever give license for a value to change during | assignment? 16.1.2 Subtypes of STRING, and I qoute: However, the consequences are undefined if a character is inserted into a string for which the element type of the string does not include that character. | Well, I was there and you weren't, so I think I can comment on the intent, | to the best of my recollection. that's appreciated, but I must say I find "I was there and you weren't" to be amazingly childish as "arguments" go. | What we wanted to remove from the standard were the API and UI that dealt | with the nature of specific attributes. We didn't want to distinguish | these specific attributes (bits and fonts), which often didn't make sense | in many implementations or applications. But I don't think we intended | to destroy the notion that attributes are part of the objects, and are | thus included in assignments just like any attributes and slots of other | data types. They could get lost during I/O, due to the fact that the | language can't specify the nature of external file formats, but as long | as you stay within the Lisp environment they should stick. perhaps you, who were presumably there for the duration, could elaborate on the intended _consequences_ of the removal of the string-char type and the change to strings from being made up of a subtype of character that explicitly excluded fonts and bits to a character type that didn't need to include fonts and bits? #:Erik