On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> Yup, same basic page; with a few asides:
>
> - still don't suspect it's a good idea to specify any particular encoding
>   for scheme's required character-set.

Agreed, but I don't have any problem with a SRFI or standardized option
that permits it and defines "this is how it should work if you implement
the feature."

> - still don¹t suspect it's a good idea to allow potentially non-portable
>   characters to be used in identifier or comments.

This is effectively saying that extensions in this area are bad, and I
can't agree with that.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd