Re: Character and output-width proposals

[Richard Mlynarik <mly@adoc.xerox.com>]

   From: david carlton <carlton@husc.harvard.edu>
   To: Aubrey Jaffer <jaffer@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
   Cc: rrrs-authors@ai.mit.edu, carlton@ai.mit.edu
   Subject: Re: Character and output-width proposals 
   Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 15:44:32 -0400
   
   On Sun, 31 May 92 23:34:57 -0400, "Aubrey Jaffer" <jaffer@martigny.ai.mit.edu> said:
   
   [...]

   >   Proposal:
   
   >   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
   > char->integer.
   
   I see no reason why these numbers should exist at all.
   
I see no reason why CHAR->INTEGER and INTEGER->CHAR should exist at
all.  They are and can be of no portable use.

They make about as much sense as having a standard INEXACT->INTEGER
procedure which returns an integer with the same bit-pattern as that
of the inexact number's internal representation.