Am Di., 10. Juni 2025 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal <[email protected]>: > > I would like to reiterate that my email yesterday was arguing *against* this > or any new convention for naming SRFI libraries, so further criticism seems > perhaps redundant :-) > > To summarize, my wish is that this SRFI should > > (1) specify that an identifier library name component of the form :⟨digit⟩⁺ > should be treated by implementations’ library managers as equivalent to an > exact integer name component, for R6RS compatibility/historical reasons only > > (2) recommend the use of SRFI 97-style library names in the ‘R7RS style’ i.e. > when exact integers are used in library names, so libraries might now > canonically be called e.g. (srfi 1 lists), (srfi 9 records), etc. > > (3) add #!srfi-xyz reader directives for accessing lexical syntax > > To the criticism of the third point: > > > #!r6rs-4 cannot work because the #!-syntax is not delimited. With > > #!srfi-4, there could be no #!srfi-44. > > > It appears this is the case of #!r6rs in the R6RS report (by oversight?), but > the R7-small report says of the #!fold-case and #!no-fold-case directives > that ‘it is ungrammatical to follow a ⟨directive⟩ with anything but a > ⟨delimiter⟩ or the end of file.’ (p. 62)
SRFI 261 was created in the context of R6RS. Whatever R7RS specifies is not relevant. That #!XXX does not have to be delimited in R6RS; this is likely not an oversight, but rather intentional. Such a flag may change the behaviour of the reader for processing subsequent characters in any way whatsoever. For example, #!fortran could mean to parse the following as Fortran, and the notion of a delimiter may be absent or different from the notion of a delimiter in Scheme. Am Di., 10. Juni to be 2025 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Marc
