On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 2:01 PM Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> > I think having the query functions named data_is_ascii_* may be
> sufficient to alleviate these concerns.
>
> In general, I understand that it's a bit odd to have something like
> is_ascii_digit('0') be potentially false and run a purely numerical
> test that ignores literal encoding, but every alternative seems worse
> here. I don't feel like saying "data_is_ascii_digit('0')" meaningfully
> improves this.
>
> We also usually say "lerp" or "midpoint", not "numbers_lerp"; adding
> "data_" to the name feels like it repeats information that is evident
> from the parameter. Isn't a char a datum? Why would we need to say
> "data_", as if that added any sort of information?
>

Because "ascii" as an adjective in the name is ambiguous. It can be taken
to mean that it restricts the domain of abstract characters to the ones
encoded by US-ASCII.
Adding "data_" says that the function operates on the numerical value.

-- HT