Forwarding John's message to the list.

----- Forwarded message from John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> -----

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 18:40:43 -0400
From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
To: Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>
Subject: Re: SRFI 97 library name equivalence?

I think it was me, but I certainly didn't have any *reason* to do so; it
probably just seemed obvious at the time.

This name-hyphen-number strategy sounds good to me.

As for standard characters, pp

> 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>
>

----- End forwarded message -----

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