[As a MIT Scheme /user/ and not a developer, I'm replying to the users list.]
I think the nomenclature of "package" found in comments in MIT/GNU Scheme sources is showing package dependencies (like what is done in C with #includes), and really just duplicates the correct package information that exists in some .pkg file. I'm not so sure about the necessity for creating the package-local variable facility you propose, but I think you've argued well for bringing Edwin's buffer-local variable system up to snuff with Emacs's. Edwin supports something called "Edwin Variables" analogous to Emacs's "Local Variables". Perhaps you haven't taken a look at that yet. I would think that could set the `scheme-environment' variable as you wish. But you're right, their should be some consistency between Emacs and Edwin. Unfortunately, I've read Edwin can barely mimic version 18(?) of GNU Emacs. /a On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Taylor Campbell wrote: > (I'm not sure whether the correct forum for this is that of MIT Scheme > usage or MIT Scheme development, so I sent this to both.) > > ... > > Would anyone else find it useful to allow a package local variable to > be specified in the -*- line and recognized by Edwin to refer to the > SCHEME-ENVIRONMENT Edwin variable? For instance, the top of the file > runtime/pathnm.scm, to continue the above example, would no longer be > > #| -*-Scheme-*- > > but rather something more like > > #| -*- Mode: Scheme; Package: (runtime pathname) -*- > > I could implement this myself and submit a patch if it be deemed > useful to be included built-in to Edwin, but I wanted to see whether > anyone else (particularly the MIT Scheme maintainers) would consider > it useful first, or perhaps why the Edwin find file initialization > mechanism is to be preferred. _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-users
