On 10 Sep 2009, at 5:06 pm, Ray Dillinger wrote:

> I don't care how they are laid out in the file system.
[snip]
> To reiterate, it's not a question of how files are laid out in the
> file system; it's a question of exactly how the language allows
> programmers to refer to and use standard modules.

There's three issues here.

1a) As Ray points out, we should be able to request optional standard
features in a portable way (which strongly implies without caring
about filesystem paths)

1b) However, there's an interesting issue of installation; if we have
written a portable implementation of a standard or non-standard
library, how is it "installed" into an implementation? This is really
down to the implementation, but some recommendations on accepted
practice for implementations that work in common platforms might not
be out of place. Even if just a recommendation that an implementation
supply an "install-module" procedure that takes a filename, and
attempts to find a module inside it and install it, or something.

2) We should be able to structure out application as a set of modules
that comprise it, in effect a main program plus a bunch of third-party
modules, that may be a mix of modules specific to that program (but
providing valuable internal segmentation) and bundled third-party
portable library modules; and we should be able to put these files in
a tarball or something and expect them to work on any implementation
with a filesystem (and implementations without filesystems should
probably have some tooling to get such directory structures into their
implementation's database or whatever). This should be a compulsory
part of the standard, just a strong suggestion for filesystem-based
implementations; in particular, I think that suggesting that the
ability to require a module by name, when that module is contained in
a file with the name of the module plus ".scm" and found in a
directory alongside the program/module importing it, is a good start;
support for absolute or relative paths with directory components,
however is a more questionable idea.

>
>                               Bear
>


ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/




_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss

Reply via email to