[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Character and output-width proposals
On Tue, 2 Jun 92 11:33:48 -0400, "Aubrey Jaffer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>From: david carlton <email@example.com>
>>From: Aubrey Jaffer
>>> char-code-limit constant
>>> Is an integer 1 larger that the upper bound of the values which can be
>>> returned by char->integer.
>>> char-code-lower-limit constant
>>> Is the lower bound of the values which can be returned by
>> I see no reason why these numbers should exist at all.
> Suppose you are writing a string search program and you want to
> dispatch on a character through a table (vector). You need to make
> the vector the right size or you may get (or worse, not get) runtime
That's not my point. I don't understand why there should be such an
arbitrary restriction on characters. I can imagine that it is useful,
but I can also imagine that lots of arbitrary restrictions would be
useful; I just think that they typically raise more problems than they
solve. And I certainly wouldn't write programs that do things like
the above and expect them to work - what if your implementation does
have a finite number of characters, but they are 32-bit or 64-bit
characters, so such a vector won't fit in your finite address space?
> My example of Grobner base ordering is to assign numbers to objects in
> such a way that the ordering has certain properties. One of these
> properties is that the first item in a list has more priority than all
> others. In order to do this I have to have a bound on objects based
> on characters (like strings and symbols). In order to do this I need
> to know the bounds for characters.
Would a lower bound be sufficient for this? Having a lower bound (of
0, presumably) would make more sense to me than having an upper bound.
That would at least give you a natural well-ordering on the set of
I know things about TROY DONAHUE that can't even be PRINTED!!