Dave Mason <xxxxxx@sarg.ryerson.ca> writes:
> As another datapoint, there are well over 2000 RFCs and nobody that
> I've heard of has a huge problem with that.  People know the ones they
> care about.

Zigactly! OTOH, there are two significant differences: RFCs tend to
address larger units of functionality and RFC indices are widely
distributed (e.g. every linux distro I've seen for years has the full
set).

> SRFIs are somewhere between RFCs and modules.  But I don't actually
> have a strong opinion either way.

Well neither do I, really. I find that I do forget which SRFIs
implement what, but I also find that it doesn't much matter because I
know the ones I use heavily (0, 1, 9, 13, 14).

Al*'s argument about the SRFI process assign entries in an
alphanumeric address space, in addition to the numeric space, seems
reasonable in some respects. However, a comment that I emailed
privately to Ulrich Kaufman also seems particularly relevant. I would
prefer that the SRFI process *not* canonize a rat's nest of competing
memes, but that, over time, the best of the SRFIs would be
ubiquitously implemented, diminishing the utility of the feature
identifiers.

david rush
--
Scheme: Because pure lambda calculus gets tedious after a while.
	-- Anton van Straaten (the Scheme Marketing Dept from c.l.s)