This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 103 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 103 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
I understand why it may seem like a good idea to have (foo) => "foo/main.sls" in addition to the usual (foo) => "foo.sls" mapping. [I added it to Ikarus to be compatible with PLT, and thought it was a good idea at the time] Now "foo/main.sls" has serious problems, mainly, when you have libraries names (foo main). The workarounds are well known, and so are the problems associated with them. It seems to me that this ^main^ convention is beneficial only to libraries whose names is a single component, e.g., (foo). Libraries distributed in a collection do have a common prefix and don't usually need an implicit ^main^ file. (right?) I also noticed that the two carets are very disturbing and this might have severe long-term effect on your visual apparatus (maybe more than Scheme's excessive use of hash marks). I think the second reason by itself is sufficient to drop the caret-main-caret convention, but would like to know what others think. Are the benefits worth the complications? Should they be dropped or kept? Aziz,,,