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. -- I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool [email protected] before our very window. Does he think that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Men sleep without watch all night? _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
