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> My advice: make these program names *short* and highly coded > > Suggestion for this specific case? Yes. Forget about all the variants, call the executable "scheme" and **require** that it support SRFI 0. Also, add the features "r4rs", "r5rs", and "ieee-1178-1990" that can be checked by cond-expand. End of story. Check me on this, please. Suppose we do it your way. We have multiple scripts scattered over the system; some are R5RS, some are IEEE, etc. All of these scripts fire up the same interpreter. So this one interpreter has to be able to provide these multiple interfaces on demand, right? That would work for differences that occur above the text->sexp parsing step, but would not help you with lexical/sexp-syntax differences. Do we know that the relevant options are identical at this level? Another small point: calling the script "scheme" seems like a bad idea. You probably want a name that won't conflict the default interactive Scheme system on the system. "scheme-script" had that property. For something shorter, maybe scheme0 (for "Scheme with SRFI 0"), or scmrun or scmscript or srun. Don't nobody tell me I am exercising tasteless judgement in over-shortening names. I know they are ugly names. I only point out that with a 32-char limit, you are really up against the wall. -Olin