This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 83 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 83 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Ray Blaak wrote: > >>> - sometimes many >>> small libraries are best expressed in a single file, >> >> >> >> I think this is fairly rare, and not a very important use case. >> If they're small, why should they be separate libraries? > > > The organization of libraries can be done for reasons other than size: > purpose, ownership, units of work, etc. If you do want to reflect this organization in the lib-path, then the point about having multiple libraries per source unit is moot. If you want some organization that is not reflected in the lib-path, you could have: In toms-libraries.scm: (library "stack" ...) (library-vector "queue" ...) In bills-libraries.scm: (library "math" ...) (library "matrix" ...) But is this really any advantage over: In stack.scm: ;; Owner: Tom (define stack ...) In math.scm: ;; Owner: Bill (define (sum-sqrt ...) ...) This does suggest a "meta" feature. Instead of "Owner" in a comment, one might want: In math.scm: (meta 'Owner "Bill") (define (sum-sqrt ...) ...) Here meta is a standard hook to add meta-information about a library. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/