This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 97 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 97 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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,,,