Alfa Male Petrofsky <xxxxxx@petrofsky.org> writes:
> > From: xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr.  Preprocessor])
> > >>>>> "al" == Alchemy Petrofsky <xxxxxx@petrofsky.org> writes:
> >
> > al> As Alex Shinn pointed out, the perl community has had success
> > al> without the subnumbers by simply giving out names on a
> > al> first-come-first-serve basis, with the editors occasionally
> > al> rejecting requests for overly-generic names.  That sounds
> > al> workable to me, but my proposal is a little easier for the
> > al> editors.  Presumably, most SRFI authors will choose a unique
> > al> name on their own, but if two of them really want just plain
> > al> "foo", then they can both have it.
> >
> > This effectively amounts to assigning a keyword to a SRFI document,
> > right?
>
> I think so, but it depends on precisely what you mean by "assigning a
> keyword".  I think the shortnames proposal I made in my first message
> was pretty specific, so I hope that reviewing that message will enable
> you to answer whether or not this is equivalent to assigning a
> keyword.

I think that again we have two sepearate discussions taking place
here. There is a desire for a non-numerical scheme for assigning feature
identifiers associated with SRFIs 0 & 7, and there is a need for a
document reference standard. It is not clear to me that the second
problem requires any solution. The first problem lies in a grey area
and it may be convenient for the SRFI process to address it at some
point. However, I also would prefer that the SRFI process not become a
mmethod of canonicalizing extensions to Scheme. I thought it was
supposed to be a feeder process for RnRS.

Personally, I am not dissatisfied with using (essentially) numerical
feature identifiers. In some ways I prefer them because it leaves room
for me to associate my own feature identifiers with user libraries.

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