On 2020-10-05 08:56 -0700, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> I've just published draft #4 of SRFI 207
> <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-207/>. It was submitted by Wolfgang
> Corcoran-Mathe, co-author of the SRFI.

I'd like to "bump" some points that were not addressed in this draft,
but which I mentioned a couple weeks back:

* Having two different intepretations for strings is a kluge, so
`bytestring' should adopt the same interpretation of string
arguments that string->bytevector uses.  (This might obviate the
need for string->bytevector in the first place.)

* Can we get rid of the horrible `v' argument to bytevector->string?
R6RS implementations of this function could be allowed to prepend the
'v', and I think this could be handled more cleanly with cond-expand.

Regards,

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"In these days the angel of topology and the devil of abstract algebra
fight for the soul of each individual mathematical domain."
--Hermann Weyl