Am 08.08.2011 13:37, schrieb John Cowan: > Denis Washington scripsit: > >> I was wondering how implementations are thought to resolve file names in >> module "include" forms: relative to the including source file or the >> current working directory? Only the former would be really useful IMO, >> but there is no mention of this concern in the draft. I know that file >> name resolution is actually out of scope for the report, but a sentence >> hinting to what is intended might be nice. > > If I were an implementer, I'd do what gcc does: look in the directory > of the including file, then in a list of user-specified places, then > in a list of implementation-specified places. > >> (If every implementation >> interprets this differently, "include" becomes useless.) > > I don't really understand this claim.
If a few implementations decide to use the working directory as base for "include" file names - which wouldn't be such far-fetched decision, given that "load" works the that way on most systems - one couldn't rely on, e.g., the including file's directory to be searched. Which would be bad. (However, I might overestimate the likeliness of this happening.) Regards, Denis _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
