Re: Several comments

[sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])]

>>>>> "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