Paul Schlie <xxxxxx@comcast.net> writes:

> Or one could more simply reinforce the notion scheme's character type is
> simply distinct from (although likely a subset of) the definition of a
> new character type targeted to support more generalized text processing
> than is minimally necessary to support the definition and processing of
> the scheme language itself (which is all that scheme's character type is
> specified/suited to be sufficient for).

The Scheme character type includes many features designed to make it
more "useful", which are completely unnecessary for the simple task of
parsing Scheme.  This creates the problem that people may *use* it for
tasks other than just parsing Scheme (as indeed they do), and thus
programs which use it for those tasks will be ill suited to richer
environments.

Thomas