Bear writes:

     Characters which casemap to characters outside the
     single-codepoint character set are not a problem for me since my
     characters aren't limited to a single codepoint.  I'm mostly here
     trying to avoid getting the Right Thing defined out of existence
     in favor of kluges and hacks designed to accomodate the
     shortcomings of single-codepoint character sets.

That's good.

Just as an aside: I /think/ that we largely agree _in_the_abstract_
about what The Right Thing is.  That is to say: I think I want Pika
Scheme to eventually have facilities which are isomorphic to the
infinite (or very, very large) character set that you describe -- I
just want those facilities to have different names than you do.

Your concerns are an issue for SRFI-52 because, as I understand it,
you want to use the names of some standard Scheme procedures for some
of these facilities.  I don't want to do that in Pika Scheme and thus
am in the position to screw up by proposing specifications for those
procedures that would forbid the implementation you have in mind.

So, yes -- it's a good thing to spot during the draft period any
proposals that your implementation would not conform to.  Ideally we
won't find any; hopefully if we find some they will be easy to
resolve.

So far, I'm aware that there are issues in a _different_ draft
("Scheme Characters as (Extended) Unicode Codepoints",
http://regexps.srparish.net/srfi-drafts/unicode-chars.srfi)
which fail this test -- for which you find my specifications too
strong for your needs.   I'd like to ask, though, that we not conflate
issues with SRFI-52 with issues with that draft.

-t