"John.Cowan" <xxxxxx@reutershealth.com> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:
>
>> I want generically-named procedures to do the correct generic thing on
>> the local system.  I want no generically-named procedures mandated by
>> the standard when they cannot be implemented correctly on a
>> fancy/schmancy system.
>
> There is no "correct generic thing".

Sure there is.  A generically named function on a fancy/schmancy
system should do the correct locale-dependent operation when case
mapping is requested.  It should also provide a "neutral" locale which
will implement the locale-independent case mapping from the Unicode
data files.

>> Now if you want, as a system implementor, to continue to implement
>> them, go right ahead.  But *please* don't force every Scheme system,
>> include a fancy/schmancy one, to do so!
>
> Fancy systems are precisely the ones that need both "small, fast, and simple"
> and "large, slow, and complex".  (These are relative terms.)

Yep.  And the exact contours are unknown.  I'm not asking for nobody
doing design; I'm asking for nobody doing design while they are doing
standardization.  As long as the functions do not rigidly require
specific behaviors that are known to cause problems, and are not
misleadingly named, I'm content.