On 06/07/2016 07:42 AM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:

> Pierpaolo Bernardi <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
>> <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Few standards later, when the deprecation takes full effect, i.e. those
>>> procedures are simply not guaranteed to return mutable strings anymore,
>>> implementations can:
>> ...
>>> - Reuse the external representation of strings for texts.  Reading a
>>>   string results in a text.
>>
>> In the meantime I propose we use «this syntax» for texts.
>
> I would think we almost certainly want to stick to ASCII for external
> representation, no?

How about "foo"?

In other words: Why can't we unify the concepts SRFI7 "immutable string"
and SRFI-135 "text"?

Why can't text-ref and textual-ref just be plain string-ref ?
The procedure textual? be just plain string? .

If we did this we might rethink the naming convention.
Any textual-xxx procedure should be string-xxx.
We might consider renaming text-xxx procedures as well;
perhaps to istring-xxx (for "immutable string").
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/