Re: five problems with this draft SRFI

[Derick Eddington <derick.eddington@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:42 -0700, Derick Eddington wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 21:20 -0400, William D Clinger wrote: 
> > This SRFI should state that files conforming to this
> > SRFI must have only one library per file.  This SRFI
> > should not require implementations to ignore all but
> > the first library in a file.
> 
> That is how I wanted it to be.  I thought my saying:
> 
>         Library files are files which contain one library form as the
>         first syntactic datum, and they are files whose path exactly
>         represents the name of the contained library. Any additional
>         contents after the first datum are ignored by this SRFI.
>                 
> was clear enough to mean that the ignoring of additional
> things-`read'-would-see is only applicable in the context of conformance
> to this SRFI.  I'll gladly reword it to what is the best way to convey
> that.

That's not what I wanted conveyed.  (Sorry I didn't have more time to
edit.)

The sentence "Any additional contents after the first datum are ignored
by this SRFI.", means Scheme systems which implement this SRFI would
have to ignore additional contents.  Which is not what we want.

As you suggested, I want to convey that files conforming to this SRFI
must have only one library per file, and that Scheme systems which
implement this SRFI are free to support files which do not conform to
this SRFI.

-- 
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------