From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: strings and characters Date: 2000/03/17 Message-ID: <3162302923332864@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 598829584 References: <3162223661729749@naggum.no> <3ZaA4.45$Hp4.998@burlma1-snr2> <3162232362158363@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 953314137 10837 195.0.192.66 (17 Mar 2000 17:28:57 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Mar 2000 17:28:57 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Barry Margolin | But if you want a type that can hold any character, you can create it with: | | (make-string length :element-type 'character) no, and that's the crux of the matter. this used to be different from (make-string length :element-type 'string-char) in precisely the capacity that you wish is still true, but it isn't. when the type string-char was removed, character assumed its role in specialized arrays, and you could not store bits and fonts in strings any more than you could with string-char. to do that, you need arrays with element-type t. but I'm glad we've reached the point where you assert a positive, because your claim is what I've been trying to tell you guys DOES NOT HOLD. my claim is: there is nothing in the standard that _requires_ that there be a specialized array with elements that are subtypes of character (i.e., a member of the union type "string") that can hold _all_ character objects. can you show me where the _standard_ supports your claim? | In fact, you don't even need the :ELEMENT-TYPE option, because CHARACTER is | the default. sure. however, I'm trying to penetrate the armor-plated belief that the resulting string is REQUIRED to retain non-null implementation-defined attributes if stored into it. no such requirement exists: a conforming implementation is completely free to provide a single string type that is able to hold only simple characters. you may think this is a mistake in the standard, but it's exactly what it says, after the type string-char was removed. methinks you're stuck in CLtL1 days, Barry, and so is this bad imitation jerk from Harlequin, but that's much less surprising. #:Erik