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.
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 22:33 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > Shiro Kawai <shiro@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Derick Eddington <derick.eddington@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing > > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:23:22 -0700 > > > >> It's not only for single-component library names. If you have libraries > >> (acme foo), (acme foo helper1), and (acme foo helper2), you may want > >> them all organized under "acme/foo". > > [...] > >> A collection of libraries with common prefix (acme ---) might have an > >> (acme) library and you may want all the libraries organized under > >> "acme". I don't know how usual this will be. > >> > >> I've been under the impression there's enough demand for the > >> organize-under-the-same-directory ability of the implicit file name to > >> justify supporting it. I could be wrong. Am I? > > > > Just as a data point, I don't have desire to organize a library > > under a single directory. I don't mind the library tarball > > expands into acme/foo.sls, acme/foo/helper1.sls, acme/foo/helper2.sls... > > > +1. I do my library collection layouts like this, and don't feel a need > for the implicit rule, and would rather have it dropped I also have not been using the current implicit file name support of different R6RS systems, but that's more a result of their schemes not being portable and not existing until after I started my collections. As a result of having many files "littered" outside their logical collection, I think in my role as a reviewer and manual manager of collections, I might benefit from it. On the other hand, the increased possibilities of where a library's file can be located is a detriment as a reviewer or manager of collections. So, I'm conflicted about the implicit file name. I'll go with whatever the majority of users of this SRFI want. So far, that's: For: Undecided: Me. Against: Aziz, Andreas, and Shiro. Let's allow more time for more people to give their say. IIRC, I've heard three other people say they like the implicit file name, and that's only within the limited range of things I hear. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------