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.
Alfa Male Petrofsky <email@example.com> writes: > > From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) > > >>>>> "al" == Alchemy Petrofsky <email@example.com> writes: > > > > al> As Alex Shinn pointed out, the perl community has had success > > al> without the subnumbers by simply giving out names on a > > al> first-come-first-serve basis, with the editors occasionally > > al> rejecting requests for overly-generic names. That sounds > > al> workable to me, but my proposal is a little easier for the > > al> editors. Presumably, most SRFI authors will choose a unique > > al> name on their own, but if two of them really want just plain > > al> "foo", then they can both have it. > > > > This effectively amounts to assigning a keyword to a SRFI document, > > right? > > I think so, but it depends on precisely what you mean by "assigning a > keyword". I think the shortnames proposal I made in my first message > was pretty specific, so I hope that reviewing that message will enable > you to answer whether or not this is equivalent to assigning a > keyword. I think that again we have two sepearate discussions taking place here. There is a desire for a non-numerical scheme for assigning feature identifiers associated with SRFIs 0 & 7, and there is a need for a document reference standard. It is not clear to me that the second problem requires any solution. The first problem lies in a grey area and it may be convenient for the SRFI process to address it at some point. However, I also would prefer that the SRFI process not become a mmethod of canonicalizing extensions to Scheme. I thought it was supposed to be a feeder process for RnRS. Personally, I am not dissatisfied with using (essentially) numerical feature identifiers. In some ways I prefer them because it leaves room for me to associate my own feature identifiers with user libraries. david rush -- Scheme: Because pure lambda calculus gets tedious after a while. -- Anton van Straaten (the Scheme Marketing Dept from c.l.s)