This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI discuss from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI discuss contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Mike" == Michael Sperber [Mr Preprocessor] <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >>>>> "al" == Alphanumeric Petrofsky <email@example.com> writes: al> As has been discussed on comp.lang.scheme, the naming scheme for al> SRFIs has become unwieldy: keeping thirty different numbers al> straight is beyond the mental capacity of those of us who al> inhaled questionable substances in college, and using the full al> titles is both too verbose and unamenable to embedding in an al> identifier. Mike> Could anyone remind me exactly what problem needs solving Mike> here? I'm not sure I understand. Al* just explained as simply as could be: numbers are hard to remember. Yet these numbers are referred to and listed everywhere regarding SRFI's, from feature summaries, to Scheme documentation to actual programs (either via feature-cond or a module system). Not only is it difficult for experienced Schemers to remember, it has the form of a secret code that others have to learn before they join the Scheme cabal. Many examples were given of these numbers being awkward in programming, requiring lookups, being cryptic if feature comparisons of Schemes, and also of scaring off newbies and outsiders to Scheme. An actual excerpt from the start of one of my modules: (use srfi-1) (use srfi-2) (use srfi-11) (use srfi-13) (use srfi-14) does this really not seem like a problem to people? And please don't argue (use srfi-1) ;; list-lib (use srfi-2) ;; and-let* (use srfi-11) ;; don't even remember... (use srfi-13) ;; string-lib (use srfi-14) ;; char-set-lib is better because I can remember the name when writing the module the first time around, but would still have to refer to a reference card to get the number. I'd like to think that after some experience with a language I wouldn't need a reference card to write programs. And anyway, it's just plain aesthetically displeasing and makes Scheme look like a backwards language. And this isn't about modules... I'd like to see summaries of which SRFI's a Scheme supports and not have to cross-reference all the numbers. -- Alex