Hi all,

I'm sorry to see the discussion on this list becoming so heated.
I understand Daphne's concerns about SRFI 261, although I don't like
the mode of expression.  I appreciate Wang's efforts on a difficult
task.  And I fully support the SRFI editor's decision to accept the
SRFI as final.

I still think the basic naming protocol suggested by this SRFI is
superior to SRFI 97's, for all of the reasons stated in the SRFI.
The colon was never a pretty choice.

(The following probably belongs on a thread in srfi-discuss.)

I'm not particularly concerned about whether the proposed list of
library names agrees with 97's list or with the names proposed by
SRFI authors.  Library names are no one's property, & it is the Scheme
community which will ultimately decide which names are best. (Does
this sound a bit American?  So be it.)  Similarly, I have no problem
with meta-SRFIs in general.  Like other SRFIs, they will be adopted, or
not, based on their merits.  I am, however, interested to hear (again,
on a different mailing list) what people find worrying about them.

Regards,

Wolf

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