This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 22 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 22 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Olin" == shivers <shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Olin> 2. It is a general Unix convention that interpreters read from their Olin> stdin, but alternately take a Olin> -c <exp> Olin> switch. You might consider adding this as an alternate to the Olin> -call <entry-point> Olin> option. Hmm, good point. I'd hate to make the SRFI more bulky, however. What do others think? Olin> 3. Your design essentially *requires* a /bin/sh Olin> trampoline. Which I find annoying. Why? The cost is negligible, the benefits substantial, and the alternative you propose is way baroque. Olin> 4. This is a bogus spec: Olin> <script prelude> --> #! <any character including newline> !# Olin> One problem is the singular "character", when you mean multiple Olin> characters, of course. And the "anything including newline" spec Olin> isn't right, either, since !# isn't allowed. Here's my version: Olin> <script prelude> --> Olin> #! <any sequence of chars not containing bang-sharp> !# Olin> Is that better? Yes, good point. Olin> Also, I'd suggest making the terminator be newline-bang-sharp, not Olin> simply bang-sharp. Makes the possibility of a false positive even Olin> less likely. I don't see a great likelihood for a false positive. Olin> 5. The draft says Olin> In the case of -srfi7 all specifications of filenames Olin> (marked by <filename> in the syntax of SRFI 7) are strings Olin> containing Unix-style filenames relative to the directory Olin> the script resides in. Olin> Err... are you *sure* you want to do that? Yes. If I'm not mistaken, scsh behaves in the exact same way. Olin> Invariably, a relative pathname in Unix means relative to the Olin> process' cwd. You are changing that rule, *only* in the case Olin> of code appearing in a Scheme script. That could cause weird Olin> surprises... No, I'm changing that for the *configuration* *describing* the Scheme script. Olin> This is problematic for other reasons, as well. What if I Olin> want to load stuff in from some standard library directory, Olin> regardless of where you might locate my script? Are you Olin> disallowing absolute pathnames? No, I'll be more explicit about that. Olin> If you really want to do this relative-to-the-script pathname Olin> resolution, you might be better off saying that *relative* Olin> pathnames are interpreted this way, and absolute pathnames Olin> are simply absolute filenames. OK. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla