"Geoffrey Teale" <xxxxxx@member.fsf.org> writes:

> I have one simple question.   If you step back from this process, and you
> think about someone coming to scheme for the first time, what value is there
> in naming a library after the order that someone thought of the idea?
> Please take the following in the good humour it is intended - I don't want
> to start a flame war, just make a point.

Essentially for the same reason that RFCs are numbered: So that the
names for libraries can be chosen simply and without conflict.

Remember that SRFIs are primarily documents, not libraries.  They are
also not a comprehensive set of libraries, but a community process.

David's proposing a naming scheme that includes a mnemonic description
of what the library is about: that seems like a step in the right
direction.

However, if you think think there's a way that allows choosing library
names that are:

- robust (i.e. don't need to be changed after they're picked)
- unique over time
- more intuitive than the SRFI numbers

... then I urge you to write it down and submit it.  Me personally, I'd
rather have dumb numbers where I know they're dumb, rather than more
intuitive names chosen creatively to be unique.  (Which is the one I
want? PerlIO::gzip or Tie::Gzip, java.nio or java.io?)

If you want to take this further, you should probably follow up on
xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla