[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the discussion so far
On 7/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We can standardize names that have ascii- as part of the name, because
> they clearly and unambiguously name what the functions do. But to use
> confusing names in the hopes of helping broken code continue to limp
> is not a decision that the standard should be making.
I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but I'm still not clear what you're
arguing in favor of. Do you want to leave all existing R5RS character and
string procedures unspecified, optionally introducing new versions with
ascii- or unicode- prefixes?