On 7/20/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but I'm still not clear what you're
arguing in favor of.  Do you want to leave all existing R5RS character and
string procedures unspecified, optionally introducing new versions with
ascii- or unicode- prefixes?

--
Alex