[r6rs-discuss] What's up with the library names?

[Abdulaziz Ghuloum]

On May 24, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Anton van Straaten wrote:

> It's more likely that explicitly specifying (6) in some cases could
> become necessary under a future version, in order to obtain some
> backward compatibility which the newer version libraries don't offer.

In the future, I will have a chance of being able to do:

(library (foo)
   (export ---)
   (import
     (from (r6rs base) <something>)
     (from (r7rs) <something-else>)
     ---)
   ---)

AND will be able to run all my existing r6rs libraries
unchanged because my implementation has the standard r6rs
libraries already and I will simply not throw them away
that easily.

With the rnrs names, I simply can't do any of that and
would have to pick either version (6) XOR version (7).
I consider this a major defect introduced in the 5.93
draft.

Aziz,,,