[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI naming
> al> As has been discussed on comp.lang.scheme, the naming scheme for SRFIs
> al> has become unwieldy: keeping thirty different numbers straight is
> al> beyond the mental capacity of those of us who inhaled questionable
> al> substances in college, and using the full titles is both too verbose
> al> and unamenable to embedding in an identifier.
> Could anyone remind me exactly what problem needs solving here? I'm
> not sure I understand.
I, for example, wouldn't like code like this:
[(and srfi-1 srfi-66 srfi-92 srfi-102) ...do this...]
[(or srfi-2 srfi-16 srfi-42) ...do that...]
In the (likely) event that many Scheme systems support a large
number of SRFIs in the future, semi-portable code might very well look like
It also makes talking about SRFIs a little bit easier.
- SRFI naming
- From: Alphanumeric Petrofsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: SRFI naming
- From: email@example.com (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])