Re: Numbers in library names

[Lassi Kortela]

> In R7RS, (srfi 1) and (srfi |1|) are different library names.

What is the practical harm?

(If there is some obscure point whereby the semantics don't add up in an 
intuitive way, I would genuinely like to hear about it. In practice, I 
think library aliases will be a must-have feature eventually. It implies 
multiple library names resolving to the same library will be commonplace 
irrespective of what is done about numbers specifically.)

>     Are the practical implications for Scheme programmers or implementers?
>     It's the whole library name that is of interest. Any part ought not be
>     interesting on its own.
>
> Parts of Scheme forms can be interesting even if they do not make sense 
> as stand-alone identifiers.

What is the practical difference?

Sounds like an esoteric point of spec-writing aesthetics.

> Your reply is out of context. We were talking about the creation of 
> R7RS, which happened more than ten years ago.

OK.

> I agree with the last point; a future RnRS can special-case "(srfi N)", 
> demanding that the library described by it must be the same as the 
> library "(srfi :N)".  The latter would be the default and numbers in 
> library names otherwise deprecated.

Thanks for the conceding that point.

But isn't this special case more complicated than a general rule?

I don't understand your fundamental motivation.

> Numbers would be reserved for versioning.

It's unwise to restrict versions to numbers only. Looking at package 
managers, non-numerical version parts always crop up eventually.