[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 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: Re: Continuing support for the sls extension
- From: Derick Eddington <derick.eddington@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:41:48 -0800
- 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:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JAtjUMEzajHi+5fzn1dqGRGCTKCif77j25V3d0Xyzqw=; b=svl6WHzEKmDjwHoiodlKPd/bJCG1M/VeOFvcVbhXGvYMGlEFfzJ3FmsSzOjbeIYwpJ k+H+1ncdlzqTJhJFD2emITrAIw0ey/s/rPKwBFoX2UFs179IYAQ6/VVvSrLgkBupnf5T px+X5s5eKFcMc3NIABDFlQi0y1tn8jHTVmaN8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=Gfukzha0eY1W+O/B65lql/0/gnBQTKiqoAD73MoE3Btqq3VEpBrXJxy9dnwQgtv5BN 5V1EdlfvNVBmmvRstEb1d3Zldj3pM/7Bet4+1/j1uPtSp7nDM2aGvxkADtoB5oR3um8f 9EKx4DHuzpu88hFkrIBb0Y2GxizJLamxiU0/o=
- In-reply-to: <1263174157.2421.212.camel@dharmatech-laptop>
- References: <1263174157.2421.212.camel@dharmatech-laptop>
I've already addressed all your below points in these messages:
(Read the entirety of the messages.)
On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 19:42 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos wrote:
> 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?