On 9 Jun 2025, at 14:55, Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org> wrote:

> As mentioned in a previous mail, I think the ideal naming convention for SRFI libraries, considering both ergonomics and the rules of R6RS, would have been of the form (srfi cond-expand-0), (srfi lists-1), etc.
>
> People seem to like this idea.
>
> Unfortunately, I also think that ship probably sailed with SRFI 97’s finalization; the situation where R7RS small allowed libraries with exact integer components in their names already led to one other competing convention. Adding another convention now (whether the Guile-like one this SRFI currently proposes, or the one I proposed) would risk only increasing the confusion.

Oh, I should note that I *would* support establishing a new convention iff there were signs of serious buy-in for it from Scheme implementations (and/or their SRFI libraries, in the case of implementations like Chicken and Chez which don’t ship any in the core distribution but have support from third parties).

Daphne