This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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? -- Alex