This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 60 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 60 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Taylor wrote: >I'm wondering why you started with SLIB, rather than, as you mention in >passing in the current document, the very carefully thought-out SRFI 33 >for the base of this SRFI. In particular, the naming in SLIB seems to >be quite ad-hoc -- no consistency with the LOGICAL-, BITWISE:, LOG, &c. >prefixes --, and the set of general bitwise operations is somewhat >different from that of SRFI 33: some are missing & some are added. Was >it simply that starting from SLIB was easier at the time, or is there a >more complete rationale for the conventions you chose? Especially since several Scheme imlementations (S48, Scsh, Chicken, PLT, ...) already use the SRFI-33 names. I consider it rather pointless to start even more diversification (since the SRFI-33 naming Scheme isn't in any way inferior - quite to the contrary). cheers, felix