John Cowan quoting me:

> > In srfi-152.sld, the definitions of
> >
> >     string->utf16be
> >     string-utf16le
> >     utf16be->string
> >     utf16le->string
> >
> > aren't right.  The first two ignore their one argument, and none
> > of the four accept the optional arguments specified by SRFI 152.
> >
> I don't understand this, if it refers to the sample implementation.  The
> file rfi-152.sld does not define anything, and in any case there are no
> definitions of these procedures anywhere in the implementation files.

They're in a cond-expand in srfi-152.sld

Will