I second for ascii-codepoint.  

ascii-byte? suggests there are different kind of "byte"s, which isn't the case.

On the same ground I'm not inclined to ascii-bytevector?, but ascii-codepoint-bytevector? is too long so I accept it.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
> Part of my job is to keep terminology consistent.  "Byte" is already
> defined as 0-255 in R6/R7RS.

A good principle, and a good definition for "byte".

> I stll like "ASCII codepoint" in the text and "codepoint" in the procedure
> name.

I intended "ascii-byte?" to mean "a byte that is ASCII", as
distinguished from a byte that is not ASCII (or an integer that is not a