[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Broken naming convention
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.
- To: srfi-97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Broken naming convention
- From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:43:31 -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=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; bh=EXWlk5ON/vAZjNW/5sXAPIEQrWzgtZ7urW0tsajF/58=; b=jGJEz9UhmNltm7VYie0+v0EaXLGW/rjMBjl2xZUKSPbDFW0OnHGLJ8q84NYDY4CBhAWD4FznHKq6YONYGyOMaSm/5Wru2AsZR3pVtx/dQpTostZ+4cdZycw3Nh274O9boWll+LNXguFQqdZ4Kg3FsBSWCB7UTVGWYMG7bR1XByw=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=oUD44oYOVml/Vmig4l64uC5HfUyI0UxsaFPBcUrGcbpBl2S5/iMEiZMsp/8G5q8MyqRWrEjSS06at1z4yBtIWjZo6Fz1bIUG8FhxDhwlilEfLrt+B7wbnpsATsB2x34XGDLYB1d7sB9QWIlbSWwK0Gf1ZHqG4WaY0CDEG/jnZG4=
- In-reply-to: <da4fbdb30804230616k142326e4n65acdc2038377414@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <E1JewSP-00044R-0F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <da4fbdb30804230616k142326e4n65acdc2038377414@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Van Horn wrote:
On the other hand, nobody has made an argument for why
strict conformance to R6RS is compelling.
I didn't respond to this btw because I didn't get why I need
to argue here. Were you quizzing me or are you honestly not
aware of why people go out of their way to create and adopt
various standards? Or did you mean to single out R6RS as a
standard not worthy of strict conformance? [please clarify]
William D Clinger <will@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The R6RS prohibition of numerical components in library
names looks like an obvious mistake to me.
It's not obvious to me why adding unsigned integers fixes the
problem. What's wrong with negative integers, other numbers,
strings, characters, booleans, empty lists, compound lists,
and so on? You know you have to stop somewhere when choosing
a syntax, so, restricting the names of libraries to Scheme
identifiers looks just as reasonable (or silly) a restriction
as making them symbols+uints. (except that some people really
really like uints)
Aziz,,,