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.
sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: > >>>>> "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. And I still don't. Say I've already installed Scsh 0.6, which comes with the brand new SRFI-22 support and poerted my GWZ application to take advantage of the SRFI-22 compliant installation capabilities. I've wrapped eveything up in cond-expands, and I'm pretty confident that it's "portable". Joe Bloggs now D/Ls GWZ and installs it on his SRFI-22 system, which is Gambit. How likely is it to work? Well, if I have *really* done my homework, maybe pretty good. A more likely scenario is that I haven't actually run it under Gambit because there are too many implementations to have covered all of them in my testing. Whoops! there is an incompatibility. So I have to go and put the Scheme implementation specific stuff back into my configure.in, and I have gained nothing out of the SRFI-22 exercise except the standard parameter passing. OK, the example is a bit contrived and arguably GWZ has packaging bugs, but my point is that SRFI-22 didn't help me deal with them. I've got no guarantees beyond what I can acquire from inspecting the system through autoconf, and I'm still pretty much going to need to use autoconf to do the inspection (if only to verify that I've got a Scheme that I've actually tested). > David> none of R5RS, SRFI-0, or SRFI-7 provides > David> enough functionality to do significant scripting. > > I disagree with that from practical experience. To be fair, you *can* write highly portable code with just SRFI-0, I can't speak to SRFI-7, I don't use it and I haven't seen widespread support for it (although I haven't looked hard since it is even more of a meta-language than SRFI-0, and out-of-band to the executable code, to boot). > 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. I just feel that single-name doesn't provide enough, and in fact loses valuable information. Perhaps if 'scheme-script' maintained a registry of compliant installations on the system along with introspection facilities at the command line. e.g. scheme-script-srfi-0 --on Scsh --on Bigloo or perhaps something autoconf can use like: $scheme-script --substrate Scsh 0.6 Otherwise, It doesn't seem to add much value. OTOH, Perhaps I'm just falling in love with autoconf. Gripping hand is probably that this is a good opportunity to shake out non-SRFI compliant systems. Just my $0.02 david rush -- The Torah is written in black fire inscribed upon white fire - fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire and given from fire -- 3rd Century Palestinian Merkavah Haggadah