Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes:

> On 06/07/2016 06:51 PM, William D Clinger wrote:
>> SRFI 135 already gives you that hierarchy, regardless of what
>> WG2 does, so this discussion is entirely about naming conventions.
>
> Mostly.  I also propose that string literals (and other immutable
> strings in R7RS-large) have type text.   I,e, (text? "foo") => #t.

This means breaking (string? "foo"), no?

It also puts nontrivial burden on implementations.  SRFI 135 as it
stands has a portable implementation, which might help a great deal with
adoption.

In general I'm fond of the idea of reusing the term "string" for
immutable strings, but I would rather expect it to happen gradually like
I outlined before.  A too sudden change that requires effort on the side
of all implementors is unlikely to gain a lot of adoption I think.

Taylan