On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> wrote:

A vote for (SRFI 140) is one that rocks the boat a bit (for the better), while (SRFI 135) is the "safe path" to immutable strings, while risking the possibility that it won't catch on because old code doesn't require updating, and I don't have keys on my keyboard for « and ». ;-)

Exactly. Well put.

That is very helpful.

What about (string-repeat N S) or (string-repeat S N), where S is either a string
or a character? Does either procedure conflict with any prior art?

SRFI-13 xsubstring and SRFI-135 textual-replicate -- aka. SRFI-140 string-replicate -- would be the closest I can I come up with. Their required arguments would make them an inconvenient replacement though, so string-repeat seems appropriate.