Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > 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.
I wouldn't want to see that as a *Scheme* procedure, but if you mean that the implementation should provide it somehow (possibly outside Scheme -- arbitrary programs probably shouldn't install things, and may not have the privileges to do so anyhow), then fair enough. > This should be a compulsory part of the standard, just a strong > suggestion for filesystem-based implementations [...] I assume you mean "should not" there. > 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; I should think that (load "foo.scm") (import foo) would achieve that in simple cases anyhow, without further specification. The trick is when a file implements multiple modules, or a module includes multiple files, or the files are somewhere off in the weeds. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. --Samuel Gompers _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
