On 2025-06-04 21:30 +0200, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote: > On 4 Jun 2025, at 19:36, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
