On 2020-10-07 12:47 -0400, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> As I mentioned in that previous email,
> previous SRFIs haven't introduced "string" names for "stringy"
> procedures (e.g. in SRFI 178 we have bitvector-pad, not bitstring-pad).

After reading John's response above, the naming is making more sense
to me.  "bytestring<?" is definitely clearer than
"bytevector-lexicographic<?" or the like.

That being said, is "bytestring=?" really needed?  bytevector=? does
everything we need here, and is already provided by (scheme bytevector).

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

"The composer makes plans, music laughs." --Morton Feldman