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

Re: single vs. multi-sexp modules

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.

On 1/20/06, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The current draft gives us only one example, scheme://R6RS,

OK, so why don't I get corrected or flamed on this? :)

We have the examples:


from within which a reference to the "utils" module implicitly refers to


This is, in fact, an advantage over the sexp suggestion

  (com acme wiley utils)

in that it has an abbreviation syntax built into it (though it's easy
enough to extend the sexp notation with shortcuts).

A few more questions do still arise from this syntax.

Would "/wiley/utils" be a valid URI that expands in the expected way?

What about "../roadrunner/utils" or "./utils"?  Is any sort of normalization
or % expansion to be performed?

On a related topic, the document currently states:

  A <lib-path> is therefore represented by a hierarchical
  URI string (see RFC 2396) or a symbol shortcut (defined below).

Does the symbol shortcut refer to "utils" or was there a symbol
syntax that got left out?  Apologies if I'm reading too literally, but
it seems to me the current shortcut is a "string shortcut".

Also note RFC 2396 has been obsoleted by RFC 3986.