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.
From: Derick Eddington <derick.eddington@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: five problems with this draft SRFI Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:38:06 -0700 > I think the ability to analyze a listing of the path names under a > directory tree to know the names of all the libraries located in that > tree is worth having single-library files. That analysis is > accomplished by recognizing the .sls extension and mapping .sls path > names to library names. I believe this is worth designing for because > then people and programs can look at only a listing of path names and > know all the libraries, the actual file contents are not needed, and an > additional "manifest" file correlating files to contained libraries is > not necessary. Version numbers aside (which I feel ambivalent), limiting single-library files *in this srfi* doesn't hurt, I think. Later we can come up another srfi with multi-library file, attaching different suffix (*.sla for Scheme Library Archive?). My only concern is that this path suspiciously seems similar to Java's *.class and *.jar files... --shiro