[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.

Alfa Male Petrofsky <alfa-male@petrofsky.org> writes:
> > From: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr.  Preprocessor])
> > >>>>> "al" == Alchemy Petrofsky <alchemy@petrofsky.org> 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)