Re: char-ready? => read-char-ready?

[R. Kent Dybvig <dyb@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>]

>I am in favor of the change, and I like Jonathan's suggestion to use the
>name "read-char-if-ready".
>
>Kent

Oops---Carl Bruggeman just pointed out that this does not generalize
easily to "read-if-ready".   At least, "read-if-ready" would require
an additional argument, namely an object to return if nothing is
ready.  So, the change to "read-char-if-ready" is acceptable to me
based on Pitman's comments, though it isn't as nice as I thought at
first.  Will seemed to be refuting Kent's claim that "read-char?" is
better for multiprocessing---Will, if you remember your thoughts,
maybe you can explain a little bit further.

Kent