This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 13 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 13 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
So I managed to read the latest draft. Here are my comments, pretty much unrelated to what anyone else thinks the open issues really are: - What's the rationale for having STRING-DO-EACH on top of STRING-FOR-EACH? I can't see any plausible efficiency gains, as there are for MAP. - Everything is parameterized with STRING-COMPARE, why not the meaning of "mismatch"? - I really am for dumping the case-fiddling and recognition procedures and suffixes. The way they are now, they are woefully underspecified and thorougly anglocentric. These things would be more useful alongside a better specification of the underlying character set. (Unicode probably doesn't make sense here, but ISO 8859-1 would at least make more sense than the present situation, for example.) - The same holds for the inequality predicates, unless their specifications would change to refer to the return value of CHAR->INTEGER. - There should be an explicit mention of SRFI 14 in the introduction. - I think this shared-substring stuff is cool, but pretty specialized, and completely unnecessary for most applications. I would love to see them in a separate SRFI. You could actually *require* sharing there. - I think the name STRING-CONCATENATE is badly chosen. Why not STRING-APPEND-LIST? - The "Lower-Level Procedures" are exclusively for argument checking. They're not particularly low-level, nor are they all procedures. This should be stated. The procedures contain veiled references to a condition system, and even try to pass information to it, which it may or not be able to use. In their present form, they should go. - The Knuth-Morris-Pratt stuff should also really go into a separate SRFI. It's useful, but much more rarely than the other stuff. - Oh, and I vote for bagging CAPITALIZE-STRING[!]. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla