Am Di., 10. Juni 2025 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal
<xxxxxx@nonceword.org>:
>
> I would like to reiterate that my email yesterday was arguing *against* this or any new convention for naming SRFI libraries, so further criticism seems perhaps redundant :-)
>
> To summarize, my wish is that this SRFI should
>
> (1) specify that an identifier library name component of the form :⟨digit⟩⁺ should be treated by implementations’ library managers  as equivalent to an exact integer name component, for R6RS compatibility/historical reasons only
>
> (2) recommend the use of SRFI 97-style library names in the ‘R7RS style’ i.e. when exact integers are used in library names, so libraries might now canonically be called e.g. (srfi 1 lists), (srfi 9 records), etc.
>
> (3) add #!srfi-xyz reader directives for accessing lexical syntax
>
> To the criticism of the third point:
>
> > #!r6rs-4 cannot work because the #!-syntax is not delimited. With
> > #!srfi-4, there could be no #!srfi-44.
>
>
> It appears this is the case of #!r6rs in the R6RS report (by oversight?), but the R7-small report says of the #!fold-case and #!no-fold-case directives that ‘it is ungrammatical to follow a ⟨directive⟩ with anything but a ⟨delimiter⟩ or the end of file.’ (p. 62)

SRFI 261 was created in the context of R6RS. Whatever R7RS specifies
is not relevant.

That #!XXX does not have to be delimited in R6RS; this is likely not
an oversight, but rather intentional. Such a flag may change the
behaviour of the reader for processing subsequent characters in any
way whatsoever. For example, #!fortran could mean to parse the
following as Fortran, and the notion of a delimiter may be absent or
different from the notion of a delimiter in Scheme.

Am Di., 10. Juni to be 2025 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb

Marc