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

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Fri May 11 00:11:32 EDT 2007

On May 10, Chongkai Zhu wrote:
> > I think one complaint is that it is hard to decide who gets the "good"
> > names, like "format.ss".
> For current SRFIs in PLT Scheme, there is no name conflict at all.
> For future SRFIs that may cause a name conflict, name+number is
> always a solution.

Yes, but consider a different future: the new "srfi-300" list library
comes out, *then* people start talking about the need for common names
and obviously they want to choose "list-old" for srfi-1 and "list" for
sefi-300.  At this point you're stuck.

In other words, the common name problem should not be decided at the
PLT level, but at the SRFI level.  If it wasn't decided there, then I
don't think it is a good choice to do that at the PLT level.

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.