Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> wrote:
>>
>> Neither.  We let Scheme systems decide; some systems will prefer
>> incompatibility and correctness, some systems will prefer backwards
>> compatibility.  This is as it should be.
>
> If you want R5RS, you know where to find it.

Is it not perfectly clear that I don't want R5RS?

> The whole point of this entire discussion is standardization.
> If you're not interested in even trying to come up with a standard,
> why are you here?

The fact that I think some things are usefully standardized does not
mean that I think everything should be.

We can standardize names that have ascii- as part of the name, because
they clearly and unambiguously name what the functions do.  But to use
confusing names in the hopes of helping broken code continue to limp
is not a decision that the standard should be making.

Thomas