Jorgen Schaefer <xxxxxx@forcix.cx> writes:

> String collation is very complex, as the "preferred" order of
> characters depends on the locale. But since STRING<? and friends
> are often used for things like binary search trees where the exact
> order is irrelevant and the only important thing is the existance
> of any kind of total order, defining them the way this SRFI does -
> by using the codepoint sequence - is good, because it is fast. If
> the implementation wants to provide the locale-dependent string
> collation, fine, but that's not useful for this SRFI to define.

This makes no sense.

If string<? is used only for cases where the exact order is
irrelevant, then there is no advantage in standardizing the order at
all.

So why not say that string<? implements a total order on strings, and
be done with it, not specifying the order at all?

Why go out of your way to *mandate* an order which we already know is
wrong, when you don't need to mandate one at all?