Re: SRFI inclusion

[Helmut Eller <eller.helmut@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Feb 05 2021, Per Bothner wrote:

> At least there are some semi-standard naming conventions, but I think
> this approach of defining dozens of distinctly-named functions for
> each datatype is a dead end.)

I don't think that this is a problem, because the module system keeps
those functions in their own namespace and shouldn't bother people who
don't use them.

A common interface would be nice, but designing good interfaces is not
easy.  If somebody comes up with a good interface later, maybe it can be
added post-hoc; not ideal, but should be doable with a layer of
indirection.

What bothers me more, is that maintaining those libraries separately for
each Scheme system doesn't scale.  It would probably be better to do it
like they do it for the BOOST libraries.  Have one common code base that
can be compiled with different compilers; possibly with implementation
specific versions but maintained as part of the common code base by the
people who use and care about the libraries.

Helmut