Am Fr., 8. Mai 2020 um 20:23 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

>> In any case, I didn't mean to propose
>> anything else, just the addition of s-prefix names, not removing
>> stream-prefix names as long as we stick to the library name (scheme
>> stream).
>
>
> Technically that is backward compatible, but it hardly seems worth while to double the API size for such a small gain.

The other procedures could be marked as deprecated if the voters think so.

Such a renaming could also "correct" some procedures; for example,
STREAM-UNFOLD doesn't look like it follows the general pattern of an
unfold procedure.

When SRFI 41 was voted in, I'm not sure how many people had taken a
closer look at it.

> Lazy sequences are straightforward, as SRFI 127 already has generator->lseq and lseq->generator. Stream->generator is also straightforward, but I do not see offhand how to write generator->stream.

SRFI 41 already has PORT->STREAM.

>> PS: While we go through the rainbow, a vote for really
>> backward-incompatible changes should not be ruled out dogmatically.
>> Sometimes, mistakes happen or choices that later turn out to be bad
>> ones have been made. There has to be a way to correct these before the
>> final edition of R7RS-large is out. R7RS-small had a common period and

Oops. "comment period", of course.

>> it would be good to have the same for R7RS-large when it is finally
>> done for the last polish. This wouldn't be possible if the colored
>> editions are frozen (while the charter of WG 2 doesn't call for this).
>
>
> I'll put this question on one of the ballots and see what the voters think about it.