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. If there were consensus to start implementing SRFI 97-style SRFI names in R7RS small, this could be done. I think that would be desirable. 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? > * Some authors didn't remember to come up with a library name, & nobody > reminded them to do so. (Most of the SRFIs I worked on are missing > library names, unfortunately.) You can assign them retroactively by request to Arthur, and I personally would like all SRFI authors to do this. Let me also note here I something I idly thought-aloud on IRC recently: the best convention would probably be (srfi <library name>-<library number>), where the two template parts form a single identifier. That would be R6RS compatible, and force SRFI authors to come up with names. Examples would be (srfi lists-1), (srfi records-9), etc. Daphne
