Re: [scheme-reports-wg2] Settling the singular vs plural library names issue Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 21 Feb 2022 07:38 UTC
Am Mo., 21. Feb. 2022 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 3:13 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <email@example.com> wrote: > >> >> The SRFI library names are (seem to be) derived from SRFI 97, which is consistent with R6RS. Thus we have two naming schemes, each of which is internally consistent: >> >> 1. (scheme SINGULAR) for R7RS-small and R7RS-large. > > > This decision was taken by a vote of WG1, the R7RS-small committee, and cannot be undone now because WG1 is dissolved. (I personally favored plural.) I am reasonably confident that the WG1 members in the majority were aware of the R6RS convention and chose to break with it. WG2 (R7RS-large) has so far chosen to follow the same convention as R7RS-small. > >> 2. (rnrs PLURAL) and (srfi :... PLURAL) for R6RS and its SRFI namespace. >> >> Aliases can be easily fit into this. R7RS could support plural names under (rnrs PLURAL (7)) once a minimal versioning system is established; SRFI names could be singularized in, say, (srfi SINGULAR), i.e. without the SRFI 97 ":...". > > > Aliasing is always a possibility in either R6 or R7, somewhat messily: you import the standard names and export your desired names. That is why qua CCBW I have discouraged most discussions of post hoc renaming of either whole libraries or specific identifiers: if you want your own names, just provide them. If your code is to be maintained by someone else, such name changes may annoy them. With respect to individual identifier names, I can follow this argument once a standard is adopted; R7RS-large, however, is still in a state of flux. With respect to library names, I don't see much of a problem with aliasing if there is an agreement on interoperability with the R6RS standard as well.