Cowan's email is out of the list, just copy it.
-------- 转发的消息 --------
主题: Re: [co...@ccil.org: Re: SRFI 97 library name equivalence?]
日期: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:24:08 -0400
From: John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>
收件人: Wang Zheng <ufo5260987...@163.com>
My view is that we should only disallow identifier characters that won't
work in filenames, of which Windows names are the most restrictive. So
for example $ is allowed in both Scheme identifiers and filenames on all
systems, and therefore there is no reason to ban it.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025, 11:44 AM Wang Zheng <ufo5260987...@163.com> wrote:
Dear John,
Thank you for your comments. And I want more your comments: would it
be proper to further reduce the set of suitable characters with
additional URL?
For example, ! $ % & - . @ ^ _ ~ all would be encoded.
Yours sincerely,
WANG Zheng
2025/06/14
在 6/10/25 05:22, John Cowan 写道:
Thanks, Wolfgang.
I see I managed to delete the second part of my email before
sending it, so here it is:
Suitable characters are a-z, 0-9 (but not initially), and the
following:
! $ % & - . @ ^ _ ~
That's the intersection of ASCII, Windows file characters
(lowercased). and Scheme identifier characters. This proposal only
applies to the scheme and srfi namespaces.
-----
Having written that, now I wonder if hyphen is the best separator.
Perhaps @ would be a good choice: it's not allowed initially, it
wouldn't cost much to disallow it in all other positions, and it
stands out, unlike hyphen which is de facto whitespace.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, 7:50 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<w...@sigwinch.xyz> wrote:
Forwarding John's message to the list.
----- Forwarded message from John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> -----
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 18:40:43 -0400
From: John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>
To: Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>
Subject: Re: SRFI 97 library name equivalence?
I think it was me, but I certainly didn't have any *reason* to
do so; it
probably just seemed obvious at the time.
This name-hyphen-number strategy sounds good to me.
As for standard characters, pp
> On 2025-06-04 21:30 +0200, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote:
> > On 4 Jun 2025, at 19:36, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<w...@sigwinch.xyz>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm now aware that (srfi N) is a poor convention &
requires too much
> > > memorization of SRFI numbers. I wish I'd paid more
attention to library
> > > naming in the past.
> >
> > It’s worth noting that R7RS small simply states ‘Libraries
whose
> > first identifier is srfi are reserved for libraries
implementing
> > Scheme Requests for Implementation.’ It says nothing about the
> > structure of this namespace. ...
> >
> > I don’t know who decided to do away with symbolic names
for SRFI
> > libraries with R7RS-style names in the first place. John,
perhaps?
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this convention was in
any sense
> standard.
>
> Quite possibly it was John. A quick search suggests that
SRFI 111 may
> have been the first SRFI to use the (srfi N) convention
explicitly
> (i.e. in the SRFI document, & not just in the sample
implementation).
>
> > ... the best convention would probably be
> > (srfi <library name>-<library number>), where the two
template parts
> > form a single identifier.
>
> I also like this convention, but it's incompatible with SRFI
261.
> What should we do?
>
> --
> Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>
>
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>
