Tom Emerson:
> Surrogate codepoints have a character property. They should be usable
> in a string, and individually can be considered a character.

Thomas Bushnell:
> This is exactly part of the reason why char=codepoint is such a lose.

Nah..... because:

> Most code doesn't *want* to see this kind of garbage;

Nobody disagrees.

> it's an encoding
> issue.

Everybody agrees.

> I want chars where the *computer* takes care of the coding.  I
> want chars that are fully-understood characters, not little pieces of
> a character.

Hopefully, since it's not clear exactly how to give you what
you want, R6RS will give you an environment in which you can
elaborate that idea in a portable way, propose it as standard,
and have lots of implementors try it out in their implementation
to see how they feel about it.

-t