[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: `scheme-script' and multiple Scheme installations

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 22 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 22 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.



>>>>> "David" == David Rush <kumo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

David> I just don't see how forcing them all to use a single name in 'exec'
David> space will help anything. I'd prefer to look at 'scheme-script' as a
David> meta-name, because frankly, none of R5RS, SRFI-0, or SRFI-7 provides
David> enough functionality to do significant scripting.

I disagree with that from practical experience.  Moreover, SRFI 7
gives you conditional access to the rest.  The "single name" (several
in the next revision) is a central aspect of the SRFI, I'd say.

David> Perhaps the *logical* conclusion is that this SRFI is misguided, but I
David> don't really think so. The standardization of command-line args and
David> invocation conventions would greatly ease the mental burden of writing
David> scripts for *any* implementation (since *every* implementation must
David> address those issues). I would just like to see the door left open for
David> utilizing multiple implementations.

Sure.  The SRFI doesn't preclude this at all.  A Scheme implementation
might very well say:  "We provide a special executable called
"scheme-pro-xl" which supports waffled gadgets and giffled widgets
with the command-line syntax specified in SRFI 22."

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla