[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SRFI naming

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.

Dave Mason <dmason@sarg.ryerson.ca> writes:
> As another datapoint, there are well over 2000 RFCs and nobody that
> I've heard of has a huge problem with that.  People know the ones they
> care about.

Zigactly! OTOH, there are two significant differences: RFCs tend to
address larger units of functionality and RFC indices are widely
distributed (e.g. every linux distro I've seen for years has the full

> SRFIs are somewhere between RFCs and modules.  But I don't actually
> have a strong opinion either way.

Well neither do I, really. I find that I do forget which SRFIs
implement what, but I also find that it doesn't much matter because I
know the ones I use heavily (0, 1, 9, 13, 14).

Al*'s argument about the SRFI process assign entries in an
alphanumeric address space, in addition to the numeric space, seems
reasonable in some respects. However, a comment that I emailed
privately to Ulrich Kaufman also seems particularly relevant. I would
prefer that the SRFI process *not* canonize a rat's nest of competing
memes, but that, over time, the best of the SRFIs would be
ubiquitously implemented, diminishing the utility of the feature

david rush
Scheme: Because pure lambda calculus gets tedious after a while.
	-- Anton van Straaten (the Scheme Marketing Dept from c.l.s)