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


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.

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 12:42 +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> >>> SRFI-59 and SLIB use the environment variable SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH to
> >>> configure their single Scheme-source library directory. If SRFI-103
> >>> appropriates SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH for its use, it will cause SRFI-59
> >>> and SLIB supporting implementations (of which there are many) to fail.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is a conflict in practice if this SRFI uses the name
> > SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH since the intersection of users/implementations that
> > use both R6RS and SLIB is practically 0.0.
> Larceny supports both SLIB and R6RS.
> I have both a number of R5RS implementations with SLIB, and a few R6RS
> implementations installed at the same time; and this is not that rare.

Yeah, conflict with SLIB would happen.

> > The whole idea of using "SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH" is to say where your
> > Scheme files are.
> SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH in this SRFI only specifies where R6RS libraries
> are. If R^NRS libraries (for some N > 6) will not be compatible, you'll
> end up with the same kind of conflict.

This SRFI intends to be usable by any dialect with library names being a
sequence of symbols.  That is why, in the Abstract, I wrote: "intended
for implementations of the R6RS, and perhaps other Scheme dialects".  Do
you think that should be made clearer?  I'm thinking I should add
something like the first sentence of this paragraph to somewhere in this
SRFI's document.

: Derick