> David Van Horn wrote:
> On the other hand, nobody has made an argument for why
> strict conformance to R6RS is compelling.

I didn't respond to this btw because I didn't get why I need
to argue here.  Were you quizzing me or are you honestly not
aware of why people go out of their way to create and adopt
various standards?  Or did you mean to single out R6RS as a
standard not worthy of strict conformance?  [please clarify]

> William D Clinger <xxxxxx@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> The R6RS prohibition of numerical components in library
> names looks like an obvious mistake to me.

It's not obvious to me why adding unsigned integers fixes the
problem.  What's wrong with negative integers, other numbers,
strings, characters, booleans, empty lists, compound lists,
and so on?  You know you have to stop somewhere when choosing
a syntax, so, restricting the names of libraries to Scheme
identifiers looks just as reasonable (or silly) a restriction
as making them symbols+uints. (except that some people really
really like uints)

Aziz,,,