[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SRFI-33 vs SLIB
- To: srfi-60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: SRFI-33 vs SLIB
- From: felix winkelmann <bunny351@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:31:13 +0100
- Delivered-to: srfi-60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hLSJb550jl+pOZ1LWZaGA5+SSPtnuJAG7ieBfZ2yCP/W9MYieSJ0jfQ2hScDjvw84qo9/S4oD5xjR+wmMcJrCW1YvpNh2rYBkMS7mW8AyUaUpTFTHj09KqscoghrVScBnv/l85WbCV0YPFUrVx4S0dBDQAgcRhPrV+2h5VbYHxY=
- Reply-to: felix winkelmann <bunny351@xxxxxxxxx>
>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).