Brian Harvey scripsit: > > What files exist is obviously highly environment-dependent. > > Here you are sounding like a lawyer, in the worst possible connotation:
Not guilty, but my father was. See .sig (hand-chosen this time) > you are finding a way to obey (a tortured interpretation of) the letter > of the law while flouting its spirit. I think the standard clearly > meant merely that the files on my disk are different from the files > on your disk, not that Scheme should refuse to load some files that > /do/ exist. I wasn't thinking of that at all, merely that the proverbial toaster obviously doesn't contain a file system, toasters not being in that business. If LOAD means anything in Toaster Scheme, it has to refer to something in the system's RAM or ROM or whatever it has. Or, more likely, nothing at all. > And the motivation for this restriction, if I'm remembering the thread > correctly, is that someone, I forget who, wants to protect me against the > possibility of my loading a file of malware that someone sent me. Pfui. > If this is the worry, it's the operating system's job to fix it, e.g. by > a sandboxing mechanism like that of Sugar (sugarlabs.org). I'm not sure what this is about. The context was what could be done by way of making LOAD non-optional while still understanding that it may not do anything useful in some highly constrained concepts. -- The first thing you learn in a lawin' family John Cowan is that there ain't no definite answers [email protected] to anything. --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
