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

Re: compilability of scripts

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.

> Marc>    Alternatively, this search for the file to load could be done by
> Marc>    "scheme-script" only if the script file argument has no extension
> Marc>    (under UNIX you can only invoke a script with the same extension as
> Marc>    its filename, but under Windows, scripts must have the extension
> Marc>    ".BAT" or ".CMD" and can be invoked with or without the extension).
> Marc>    So, a script "S.scm" will always load "S.scm", but a script "S" may
> Marc>    load "S.fasl", "S.foobar", "S.bat", "S", etc.
> Is it really necessary to put something like this in the SRFI
> document?  After all, the details of this are likely
> necessarily implementation-dependent, and the SRFI surely doesn't
> prevent an implementation from supporting something like this
> without losing portability of the script source code.

I believe that such an implementation would not be SRFI 22 compliant.
Currently the SRFI says that

     scheme-script filename ...

will load the Scheme script in the file "filename".  If a system loads
the file "filename.o1" instead, then that is surely not conformant.

If you want scripts to be compilable, SRFI 22 has to provide for this