Am Fr., 31. Juli 2020 um 11:40 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> > Please note that this is not the process I have proposed. Instead of
> > adding to some not formally archived data file, a new version of SRFI
> > 97 would have been published (say with each iteration of R7RS-large),
> > obsoleting the respectively previous one.
>
> Right. But then you'd get many (for example, yearly) differently
> numbered versions of SRFI 97. Not such a big problem on 1-2 a year
> timescale, but it adds up over a decade.

SRFI numbers are cheap.

> > PS SRFI 97 is obsolete anyway when it comes to R7RS systems.
>
> But R6RS is not obsolete; it's a parallel version of the language. It's
> a matter of taste whether it's better, worse, or equally good as R7RS.

That wasn't my point. I wanted to say that it would need a new SRFI
version anyway.

> One of the main virtues of a Scheme registry would be to help keep a
> stable set of identifiers instead of coining new names for the same
> things in new standards and implementations.

Apparently, the inventors of R7RS thought differently. :) There have
built a few IMHO needless incompatibilities and changes from R6RS into
the new version.

Marc