Issue:		STANDARD-REPERTOIRE-GRATUITOUS
Forum:		Cleanup
References:	Character Committee Report, 7/25/89, Proposals 2.2.1 and 2.4.3
Category:	Change
Edit history:	Version 1, 1/3/90 by Kim A. Barrett

Problem Description
  The Character Committee Report Proposal 2.2.1 (passed 3/89) requires
  implementations to support and document a STANDARD character subrepertoire,
  whose elements are the specified set of characters.  This set of characters
  corresponds exactly to those characters which are of type STANDARD-CHAR.

  The Character Committee Report Proposal 2.4.3 (passed 6/89) states that
  every character repertoire name is a type specifier.

  Thus we have two atomic type specifiers for precisely the same thing.  The
  type STANDARD is equivelent to the type STANDARD-CHAR.

Proposal (STANDARD-REPERTOIRE-GRATUITOUS:RENAME):
  Change the name of the STANDARD character subrepertoire required by
  Character Proposal 2.2.1 to be STANDARD-CHAR.

Rationale:
  This removes the duplication.

Current Practice:
  Probably none.

Cost to Implementors:
  Probably none.

Cost to Users:
  Probably none.

Benefits:
  Eliminates possible confusion when a person reading some code sees
    (TYPEP foo 'STANDARD)
  and wonders "STANDARD what?  Transmission?"

Discussion:
  Pitman and Barrett support this proposal (RENAME).

  There was initally some concern that STANDARD-CHAR might not be a valid
  repertoire name, but there are no restrictions placed on the names of
  repertoires in any of the proposals in the Character Committee Report
  dated 7/25/89.  There is a footnote (#15) that constrains character
  scripts and labels to only use Latin capitals A-Z, hyphen, and digits
  0-9, which the name STANDARD-CHAR satisfies.  Since this is a footnote,
  it can be argued that it has no force anyway.

  Unfortunately, this still doesn't remove STANDARD as a defined name
  (i.e., exported symbol of the cl package) since it's used by CLOS for
  what might be argued to be an equally ungeneric purpose.  There's a 
  fair chance that somebody somewhere along the line is going to get 
  annoyed by the inter-package sharing that occurs due to this symbol
  being present.

-----
Additional comments on the write-up:

Moon (9 Jan 90):

  I support this.  I think it's only an accident of the process for
  amending the character committee's proposals that the duplication
  between STANDARD and STANDARD-CHAR was overlooked.  Given that we
  want to get rid of one of the two duplicate names, it's clear
  that STANDARD-CHAR is a better name.
