Revisions to String Proposal

[CPH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA]

    Date: Friday, 22 March 1985  12:05-EST
    From: David Bartley <Bartley%ti-csl.csnet at csnet-relay.arpa>

    A minor suggestion -- perhaps the = and < comparators could be made
    essential and the <=, >, and >= comparators made optional.

I think that this is quite reasonable -- often I try to code this way.

Although... is the cost of tying up these few identifiers worth the
extra expressive power they may bring?  I think it probably is;
sometimes it seems that one wants to say "(>= ...)" rather than "(not
(< ...))".  The extra symbols will be bound in people's minds whether
or not they are in the "revised revised report" or not.