[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Broken naming convention
- To: srfi-97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Broken naming convention
- From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:50:22 -0400
- Cc: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivered-to: srfi-97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; bh=uS/s7yrfK0+5sRjgY5imiZ9rQbPQy4oHgqX5kEhbe3s=; b=rBudde4zKkboEJd3K/IZIofYA/klIy0TR0LuXXT20ke5xIBh79X2vB+Cb+6R5GLUsKDnZ4VAljPch3renXNL6RRXfVhCMz6MUPZ3dz7kB2E3YGLjnjJ0Nai9+oLZVjMS4aWyx7nmtx4O49oj7a4jbGjhtKUqqo7ZYKX2q6MNfjk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=eRUq6WdM1KKSMD1SZaKID8JCYIOOCSWFUPdVPC+EFDZwhsCM3gpyT+TbsOh948UzrgssEq3hrwKU5Twxqa+JE8NDLD0JDsASZdKKlWlzQWD/JTuO32O7dgJurGxxRHcNct8XFgMRrRGHL7X+S/1H1ZsLZnvLTDFzqIkpm4yadhI=
1. The naming convention promoted by this SRFI author is incompatible
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.