On 2025-06-09 18:42 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> This is not a good idea in my opinion, for at least two reasons:
>
> (1) Contrary to SRFI 97, it restricts the space of usable textual
> library name parts ...
>
> (2) Inevitably, the convention proposed by you becomes ugly when R6RS
> library versioning comes into play because the version numbers (which
> are read left-to-right) would come directly after the SRFI number,
> which is not related to versioning.

I think these are both good points.

Having had some time to think about it, I also find something awkward
about (srfi lists-1): the "-1" suffix notionally belongs after "srfi",
not after "lists". SRFI 261's (srfi srfi-1 lists) at least puts the
SRFI-number suffix where it belongs.

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