[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Search Order
- From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:15:00 +0300
- Cc: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivered-to: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version:x-mailer; bh=n62G1azRio50K/6jh8W0UWf8LHZndEW2RNv6I9YlWi8=; b=Eoz8br5DKsjfHQJrSUM22gaZaDujOOKVnx3y9Iqb5Liiq1Y5zPaER8egQudYoe9SKi 9BuPqHs72UDUGokn3mkQeFbMFxpFeYmt6zh8Q1ChkDWUP+uf8AjZYRFx7XMs9+5XFHCE kaLYS/Yie1QjMI8v9RI6f/FQCs/tcUEJs8+xg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=xntaEbeQEP7oog3gIhgyVAtJRoqtDgj1Cq7Yu+9Pnx0FKzdQGt7sMZfzxRCfOoD3OP qNHVq9hqluYHMa+wA3oaPNFoFsHrUIqGvkqwXj6TZOT7k0n4BkBFF+KfYlZZyAzr4Cr1 jj7ESa/O0anZyQbTsWrS2SzuCjQCjngyB+G6k=
Assuming that we drop versioning, ambiguity comes from three sources:
(1) multiple search paths, (2) IMP.sls extensions, and (3) implicit
main naming convention.
I think the SRFI should just say that search paths are searched in
order, and within each search path, IMP.sls is chosen over generic
libraries. The SRFI should leave (3) unspecified and leave it up to
the users not to have both "foo/bar.sls" and "foo/bar/main.sls" in
their directory structure (having both serve no purpose anyways).
So, I (as a user) should be consistent of whether to use "main" or not
for a library file. If I choose it, then I name my files:
and if not, then I should use:
In no way should I name my libraries like:
I think this simplifies both the specification and the implementation
at the minimal cost of leaving the anomalous case unspecified.