On 2025-06-04 21:30 +0200, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2025, at 19:36, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> 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?

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>