Taylor wrote:

>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?

Especially since several Scheme imlementations (S48, Scsh, Chicken, PLT, ...)
already use the SRFI-33 names. I consider it rather pointless to start
even more diversification (since the SRFI-33 naming Scheme isn't in any
way inferior - quite to the contrary).

cheers,
felix