> One small detail - Gauche also uses -v for other purpose (to specify a
> version of Gauche to run)
> so it can be mentioned in "conflicting use with lower-case -v".

I added it to the survey in the SRFI.

> The spec itself looks nice.  I just added some info in LOSE format in
> the output of gosh -V.

Thanks a lot :)

Just noticed we have separate "version", "release" and "revision"
properties. It would probably be enough to have only two of those.

Since there are 3 related properties:

* release
* release-date
* release-name

It would probably make sense to keep "release".

"revision" is useful for version control - for bug reports, especially
when working with pre-release code, it's nice to know the exact commit.

"version" would basically be the same as "release", but possibly with
distributor patches on top. For example, if FreeBSD packages Gauche, it
could be something like "(version "0.9.9_rc1_2") where the last "_2" is
the FreeBSD port's patchlevel (they sometimes create incorrect ports and
need to be patch them, which necessitates raising the patchlevel).

Actually it may be confusing to have distributors' patchlevel
information in the same field as the implementation's version number. So
even from that perspective it might actually be better if there's no
"version" field at all.

Would it be OK to have just "release" and "revision"? Also, is
"revision" a clear enough name or should it be something more obvious?