Re: [Chicken-hackers] Made a start with CHICKEN 5 proposal

[Alex Shinn]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:50 PM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:

Peter Bex scripsit:

> > As for library names, I favor fully spelled out names instead of
> > abbreviations, i.e. chicken.fixnum, chicken.flonum, etc.
>
> Noted.  I don't care much which way it goes, so if nobody argues
> strongly for the abbreviations, we'll use the fully spelled out forms.

I like the full names better.  What I don't like, and don't understand
the reason for, is the dots.  Why does the R7RS egg map (scheme base)
into scheme.base instead of scheme-base?

Specifically because scheme.base doesn't conflict with

the existing eggs.

Using the hyphen bidirectionally
makes the existing eggs visible to R7RS in a very nice way:

Chicken                 R7RS
sdl                     (sdl)
sdl-base                (sdl base)
x11-colors              (x11 colors)
9p                      (9p)
http-client             (http client)
parley                  (parley)
awful                   (awful)
awful-path-matchers     (awful path matchers)

You're inventing namespaces here that didn't exist before.  These

names were all created using a flat namespace, so one would

expect them to map to (sdl-base), etc.  In these examples it may

work to assume "-" indicates nesting, but that fails for many other

examples, such as

  F-operator

  define-record-and-printer

  static-modules

  strictly-pretty

  sql-de-lite

  etc.

srfi-19                 (srfi 19)
srfi-25                 (srfi 25)

SRFI's are special anyway, but if we wanted we could provide both

names for them.

The other concern was the ambiguity of using the most

common intra-namespace separator as the namespace

separator.  If you have the likely module names (html-parser)

and (html parser), they would map to the same Chicken name

using your proposal.

-- 

Alex