> al> As has been discussed on comp.lang.scheme, the naming scheme for SRFIs
> al> has become unwieldy: keeping thirty different numbers straight is
> al> beyond the mental capacity of those of us who inhaled questionable
> al> substances in college, and using the full titles is both too verbose
> al> and unamenable to embedding in an identifier.
>
> Could anyone remind me exactly what problem needs solving here?  I'm
> not sure I understand.

I, for example, wouldn't like code like this:

(cond-expand
  [(and srfi-1 srfi-66 srfi-92 srfi-102) ...do this...]
  [(or srfi-2 srfi-16 srfi-42) ...do that...]
  ...)

In the (likely) event that many Scheme systems support a large
number of SRFIs in the future, semi-portable code might very well look like
that.
It also makes talking about SRFIs a little bit easier.

cheers,
felix