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

Richard Cobbe wrote:
> 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
> 54....")


I won't be looking them up.  As someone who is new to PLT Scheme, I do 
the opposite.  For example, while coding, I think, "I want the 'cut' 
srfi, what number is that again?", and I have to go look.  In contrast, 
it took a day to remember all the libraries that have symbolic names. 
(lib "plt-match.ss"), (lib "class.ss"), etc.


> 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).


(require (lib "cut.ss" "srfi")
          (lib "string.ss" "srfi"))

I wouldn't have to look anything up to write that.

For people who are like integer library names, the

(lib "13.ss" "srfi")

style could continue to work.

About the other objection: "what happens if the "list" srfi (#1) is 
revised to version 2, as srfi #300."  The problem of libraries changing 
with new versions is a general problem that all languages/systems face. 
  But the usual solution is to attach integers (version numbers) to the 
symbolic name, not make the entire library name an integer.

Rob