On 2025-06-09 18:42 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > This is not a good idea in my opinion, for at least two reasons: > > (1) Contrary to SRFI 97, it restricts the space of usable textual > library name parts ... > > (2) Inevitably, the convention proposed by you becomes ugly when R6RS > library versioning comes into play because the version numbers (which > are read left-to-right) would come directly after the SRFI number, > which is not related to versioning.
I think these are both good points. Having had some time to think about it, I also find something awkward about (srfi lists-1): the "-1" suffix notionally belongs after "srfi", not after "lists". SRFI 261's (srfi srfi-1 lists) at least puts the SRFI-number suffix where it belongs. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]>
