[plt-scheme] Are new Schemers supposed to be reading SRFIs?

From: Richard Cobbe (cobbe at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Thu May 10 17:58:01 EDT 2007

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:26:45PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On May 10, Chongkai Zhu wrote:
> > I'm planning to add a "list.ss" file under "collection/srfi", which
> > will be the same as "1.ss" except the module name. But here I would
> > also like to hear other people's opinion on how to do this.
> I don't think that this is a good idea.  There are already several
> srfis that would have similar names, srfis with names that are close
> to plt libraries, and there is no convention for alternative names for
> srfis which would make things worse if names are added later and
> they're not the names that you choose.

I agree with Eli.

It looks like the primary advantage to descriptive names (for whatever
value of `descriptive') is to save the users the trouble of having to look
up the srfi number in order to require the module.  I don't expect the
descriptive names to cut down on trips to the help desk.

First, the user would still have to look up which descriptive names we
chose.  ("Now, I want SRFI 48 -- is that format.ss?  No, that's SRFI

Second, the (occasional) user would still have to look up the surrounding
stuff necessary for the require.  I mean the (lib mumble "srfi") context,
which I can never remember (possibly due to confusion with the existing
"informative name" require form).


Posted on the users mailing list.