Broken naming convention

[Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>]

1. The naming convention promoted by this SRFI author is incompatible  
with R6RS.

2. The author of the SRFI rejects one strawman alternative on the  
ground that it violates the *recommendation* of the R6RS, and because  
it cause some ugliness ...

So, I am to break *conformance* with R6RS because of what exactly?   
Because there exists another naming convention that happened to  
violate the *recommendation* of R6RS?  I would rather violate the  
recommendation than violate the requirement.  Or better yet, I would  
rater adopt some third convention that satisfies both.

Now I have previously urged Dave to reconsider the naming convention  
before publishing this SRFI so that we don't get into a bike shed  
argument about `Oh but I like these names' or `I really hate those  
names'  (which is what this thread may degenerate into  
unfortunately).  My position here is not about liking or hating any  
specific naming convention.  My position is simple: I am not going to  
break conformance with R6RS just because Dave Van Horn likes to use  
unsigned exact integers instead of identifiers for his library names.

I think my point is clear, and I'll leave it at that.

Aziz,,,