Forwarding John's message to the list. ----- Forwarded message from John Cowan <[email protected]> -----
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 18:40:43 -0400 From: John Cowan <[email protected]> To: Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> 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 <[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]> > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]>
