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: Please drop the ^main^ thing Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:26:38 -0700 > > I meant the latter. If the library is untarred somewhere else > > and 'make install'ed, auxiliary files can be left in the > > untarred site (or 'make install' puts them in different > > place). But if we just want to untar directly under library > > path, then I'd prefer a library package expands into a single > > directory, under their library name's last symbol. E.g. > > if a package provides (acme foo) (acme foo helper1) (acme foo helper2), > > everything is under acme/foo/, including README. > > So the files for those libraries must be(?): > > acme/foo/^main^.sls > acme/foo/helper1/^main^.sls > acme/foo/helper2/^main^.sls > > because "libraries' files are required to be under their library name's > last symbol". Oops, sorry, I confused libraries and packages. I assume auxiliary files are per packages, so what's required is that "everything in package expands inside one directory specific to the package". So sub-libraries in a package don't need implicit file. acme/foo/^main^.sls acme/foo/helper1.sls acme/foo/helper2.sls acme/foo/README > > I guess nothing is bad except weird feeling. On the other > > hand, I don't need to name my C program entry point to > > int ^main^(int, char**) or int MAIN(int char**) or something > > that stands out. I trained to spot "main" specially. > > Another reason I don't like using "main" for the implicit file name is > that I think libraries named (--- main) are not so uncommon that they > should have to be named "---/_main.sls" or "---/main/main.sls" I don't see it so much problem, better than having ^main^, but opinions vary... > > > But that means you can never put a > > > (foo main) library in the "foo" directory, which I don't like. > > > > This part I didn't get. Can you explain in examples? > > Say you have libraries (foo bar) and (foo main) and you want their files > to both be in (not just under) the "foo" directory -- you can't do that > because, by the rule you mentioned, (foo main) must go in > "foo/main/main.sls". I want to support the ability to use or not use > the implicit file name. Ah I see; "in 'foo'" means "directly under 'foo', not in a subdirectory of 'foo'". English is difficult. After all, I feel that my opinions are not very strong. So my position is: - A package untars into single package directory may be desired. -- this means some sort of implicit filename is required. - ^main^ looks just a little bit too ugly to me. but I don't have alternatives that are technically better. --shiro