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> Why? The cost is negligible, the benefits substantial, and the Olin> alternative you propose is way baroque. Olin> Baroque, to me, is firing up a whole interpreter simply to execute the Olin> interpreter I orginally had in mind. That is applying way more resources to Olin> the task than it needs, by orders of magnitude. Olin> Note, again, that I'm not saying remove the ability to do so. I'm simply Olin> saying that if you introduce one extra switch -- which is already implemented Olin> in fairly portable code -- you can also support direct execution. Adding / filename makes only sense if we have a standard location for scheme-script. But can you honestly imagine this will *ever* exist? I can't. And adding / filename doesn't come for free as you suggested: It will complicate the SRFI and therefore be a potential source for confusion. The Most General Design (tm) doesn't imply best usability. -- Martin