[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: whoa




On Sep 24, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Derick Eddington wrote:

Taylor Campbell wrote:

I expected, perhaps, a sentence such as the following to explain the
entire specification, modulo details of term definitions:

`A Scheme system keeps a list of directory pathnames called its search
path, relative to which it looks in order for libraries' source code
by mapping their component names to file names, mapping alphanumerics
and hyphens to themselves, and mapping all other code points by
percent-encoding.'

Maybe there need to be a couple more sentences about an environment
variable storing the search path, putting version numbers before the
`.sls' suffix

If it were that small, it would lack features and qualities I want it to
have.

That short description is fine if you want to have a one-paragraph
description, but as things stands, it's insufficient to ensure that
a collection of libraries can be used by multiple implementations
without having to reorganize, symlink, etc., every time you use a
different implementations.  Derick already enumerates many of such
incompatibilities, and I'm sure many more are not listed.
For example, just saying "percent-encoding" does not cut it since
it doesn't say if the hex characters are capital or small letters
(this just recently came up on the PLT list).

So, yes, in general, you can limit the description to say
  "(foo bar baz) => foo/bar/baz.sls"
and the rest of the document is just details of corner cases that
we'd like all implementations to agree on (which is what SRFIs are
all about, no?).

If you think there's a better way for organizing libraries so that
all implementations that I use can find them easily, efficiently,
and uniformly, I'm all ears.

Aziz,,,