SRFI 33 vs SLIB Taylor Campbell 04 Jan 2005 01:55 UTC

I'm wondering why you started with SLIB, rather than, as you mention in
passing in the current document, the very carefully thought-out SRFI 33
for the base of this SRFI.  In particular, the naming in SLIB seems to
be quite ad-hoc -- no consistency with the LOGICAL-, BITWISE:, LOG, &c.
prefixes --, and the set of general bitwise operations is somewhat
different from that of SRFI 33: some are missing & some are added.  Was
it simply that starting from SLIB was easier at the time, or is there a
more complete rationale for the conventions you chose?

If it is simply that SLIB was an easier starting point for you, I'd
like to suggest a few name changes to bring what names you added closer
to SRFI 33's conventions:

  logical:ones       -> bit-mask     (%MASK internally in SRFI 33)
  logical:rotate     -> bitwise-rotate
  bit-reverse        -> bitwise-reverse
  bitwise:laminate   -> bitwise-laminate
  bitwise:delaminate -> bitwise-delaminate