> I also like this convention, but it's incompatible with SRFI 261.
Hey, don't worry. I also like this idea and if we all agree, I will
re-draft SRFI 261.
What should we do?
在 2025/6/5 09:06, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 写道:
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?
