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.
>>>>> "al" == Alben Barkley Petrofsky <email@example.com> writes: >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) >> >>>>> "al" == Alpine Petrofsky <email@example.com> writes: al> They are the shortname serial numbers. Did you ever read the message al> that started this thread? >> >> Yes, I did. I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly: I know what it's >> supposed to mean, but I fail to see how it's easier to rememember than >> the SRFI serial number. al> I'll try answering that again. I have a much easier time remembering al> whether something was numbered 1 or 2 than I do trying to remember al> whether it was numbered 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 ..... or 97. That's reasonable, but I, personally don't. Here's a conjecture: in fact, you are most likely to remember the "1" in preference to other serial numbers. (Because you always knows it exists, for one.) If in fact, there are, say, 3, the "3" (and especially the "2") is just as difficult to remember as any other serial number, especially now that you have to remember the name with it. The potential for confusion is pretty big, I'd say, because it's going to mnemonically difficult to remember what exactly the difference between LIST-LIB-1 and LIST-LIB-2 is. al> I can use the name "Snookums", or any name I like, to refer to the al> 43rd U.S. president, but I can't expect anyone to understand me al> because "Snookums" is not a publicly-recognized name for him. al> Fortunately, our presidents do have recognized names, and the al> identifier bush-2 suffices to distinguish him from all past and future al> presidents. (Note that the names clinton-1 and bush-2, even though al> they are not at all descriptive, are much easier to remember than 42 al> and 43. Also, even though presidents johnson-1 and johnson-2 have no al> particular connection to each other, these names are still superior to al> 17 and 36.) This example is exactly where I disagree with you: To identify "johnson-2" you need to remember that there's a "johnson-1". But let me again state: if you want some sort of mnemonic naming scheme, by all means, write it up, and, if you want, submit it as a SRFI. It seems people are mostly expecting the SRFI editors to take care of this chore. There are several reasons why we presently don't: - A unique naming scheme can serve its function if it's formulated in the context of a fixed set of proposals, effectively forming a library collection. Ideally, this collection would be comprehensive in some sense of the word. Presently, in almost any sense of the word, the collection that would result from the current SRFI set is not comprehensive. - In absence of the context of a fixed set of proposals, all suggestions for naming schemes I've seen give a clear mnemonic preference to some SRFIs over others, usually based on chronology. This is likely to be the poorest choice possible in the long run, assuming that we accumulate more wisdom with time, and, therefore, better proposals. It's also something I'd like to avoid for political reasons alone. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla