[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: five problems with this draft SRFI

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.

Derick Eddington wrote:
> Library references, in the current draft SRFI,
> always do have a one-to-infinite mapping to file names, because an R6RS
> version reference, including an empty/non-existent one, always matches
> versions with more components than in the version reference, and the
> possibilities are infinite.

I appreciate the clarification.

As I predicted in a message sent to r6rs-discuss before
the ratification vote (but am too lazy to look up right
now), the version number is being treated as part of the
library	name, but with special rules that add complexity
to both the semantics as seen by programmers and to

The mapping from library references to file names is
one-to-infinite, but this draft SRFI still contains
design decisions and rationales that are based upon
the utility of one-to-one mappings between library
names and file names.

I maintain that the one-to-one mapping doesn't really
exist given the realities of this draft SRFI, from
which I conclude that the design decisions and rationales
based on that nonexistent mapping should be reconsidered.