Re: [Chicken-users] More informative names to srfi units - request from a long-term neophyte

[Matt Gushee]

Hi, Arthur--

Well, I am fairly new here myself (and have no idea what difficulties
might be involved in implementing your proposal), but here's my
tuppence:

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Arthur Maciel <address@hidden> wrote:

> It is clear that Scheme/Chicken values informative names for procedures
> (call-with-current-continuation, call-with-values, with-input-from-file,
> etc.). Wouldn't it be more informative to (use lists) instead of (use
> srfi-1) or (use hash-table) instead of (use srfi-69)?

Sounds good in principle. I have no particular thoughts about the
specific names you propose.

> These SRFIs could provided as eggs. The data-structures unit could be
> dissolved and its procedures spread according to the new specified unit. So
> these new units could contain the SRFI and more.

That might not be such a good idea. I believe the rationale for the
SRFI system is to provide a *portable* way to extend the language.
'SRFI-plus' libraries would tend to create confusion as to what is
portable. At the very least, the documentation for such eggs would
need to be very clear as to which functions are from the SRFI and
which are extra.

--
Matt Gushee