[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Continuing support for the sls extension
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.
- To: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Continuing support for the sls extension
- From: Eduardo Cavazos <wayo.cavazos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:42:37 -0600
- Delivered-to: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:content-type :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HGmJRH5+aGVD2qlAFfENIjr0SW9yhJlWsoVZkq3VAu8=; b=WUufJmHbS7b/AFEekziz6pRSWJUhg/CX/zDqKUUCcieZxFLtq+xYL79wBKqbZf+fgs zC0FPgV31QzbGU/5jjAPj9z51kAEt5iFWcpU6QXHiLzUJ7ql9/kUkZvruqFOJosCBUkc NeJc2G16oxlmpzlwAsVXkjE0tLU3Pv++dk1VU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; b=Iz7pjwdXmUDVrdKCxsDMCqNk/S9BFPMjdvcnXKupc6a2MKXxTFvIYZQ11HIbg27QdL T7LPyU2E9ejdzRmvYtNHsKgfOQhM1CJZs5D1UvaDJd3FVm2y9ivGBoxvYWeBfecJ4qWr dCvh2Z/GoC4k+cTHpaVR5HJs1ejirj1xoUy5M=
In order to support SRFI 103, an implementation would have to recognize
and honor the 'r6rs-lib' file extension for R6RS libraries. However, the
'sls' extension is a defacto standard. I'm assuming that implementations
could also continue to honor that extension and be compliant with
If the 'sls' extension can continue to be supported while being SRFI-103
compliant, then I'm less opposed to the mandated extension.
What's your view on this?