[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Continuing support for the sls extension
- 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=
Derick,
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
SRFI-103.
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?
Ed