Thomas Lord escribió:
> Jed Davis wrote:
>>> So, install some new libraries in your environment and, voila,
>>> the meaning of your programs change.
>>>
>>
>> Is that not the very purpose of a library system?
>
>
> No.
>
> The purpose of a library is to archive, preserve, and make
> acces
Jed Davis wrote:
So, install some new libraries in your environment and, voila,
the meaning of your programs change.
Is that not the very purpose of a library system?
No.
The purpose of a library is to archive, preserve, and make
accessible a collection of shared resources.
-t
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:09:47PM -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> The discussion assumes that every execution environment will have
> some arbitrary set of libraries installed. Some of these will, per
> the proposals, have the same name but different version numbers.
> Programs will refer to librari
Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
> This discussion seems to assume that storage is so precious that only
> one version of a library will be available at a time.
>
You are too generous. The discussion is much more messed up than
that.
The discussion assumes that every execution environment will have
some
This discussion seems to assume that storage is so precious that only
one version of a library will be available at a time.
This is already an outdated mode of thinking. Every version of every
SLIB file since 1998 is available from
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/slib/slib/
_
From: Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Version reference syntax is overly complex.
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:26:52 -0700
> Shiro Kawai wrote:
>
>
> > Even in the above scenario, you can still declare
> > that you won't
Shiro Kawai wrote:
> Even in the above scenario, you can still declare
> that you won't support anything before foo-2.3.
Yes, you can say that, but it is a crazy thing to say.
It may be that, at the time you write your program, it
relies on features only found in foo-2.3 but no prior
version
From: Michael Sperber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Version reference syntax is overly complex.
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:36:23 +0200
> As much as I'd like this, my experience with Python, Perl and the like,
> and the design of the library system make
William D Clinger wrote:
> Tom Lord is partly right about this. Most of
> the versioning mess should be the responsibility
> of the same layer that maps library names to
> files and other real-world objects. The editors
> have declared that layer to be outside the scope
> of the normative part of
Mike Sperber wrote:
> In the real world, I've often seen people work around bugs, effectively
> producing code that depends on their specific nature. (I know they
> shouldn't, relying only on the interface. We don't even have a serious
> notion of "interface".) Fixing the bug breaks their code.
AndrevanTonder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suggested alternative #3:
> -
>
>Give the same syntax as . A match occurs if
> matches up to the number of elements provided
>in .
>
> In other words, (rrs (6 2)) would match versions (6 2), (6 2 3), etc.
> [...]
Hi,
Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AndrevanTonder wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand the issue you mention. With my simple suggestion,
>> a
>> client import of 6.2 will match the bug-fixed 6.2.1, and import the latter,
>> as
>> desired.
>
> That concept is messed up.
>
> It assum
> Another way to see it is to think of version numbering
> systems as a kind of topological mistake. They assume
> that it is meaningful to say that a program depends
> on whatever version of a given library is both present
> and has the highest version number within some range.
> Yet, since we
John Cowan wrote:
Thomas Lord scripsit:
Version numbers aren't needed at all, except for human
consumption (hints, nothing more). What is needed
is a way to configure linkages separately from programs.
Versions have to be named in order to make it possible to
refer to a specific ver
Thomas Lord scripsit:
> Version numbers aren't needed at all, except for human
> consumption (hints, nothing more). What is needed
> is a way to configure linkages separately from programs.
Versions have to be named in order to make it possible to
refer to a specific version across different en
AndrevanTonder scripsit:
> I'm not sure I understand the issue you mention. With my simple
> suggestion, a client import of 6.2 will match the bug-fixed 6.2.1, and
> import the latter, as desired.
Indeed. However, if 6.2 is all that's available, the client will import
it regardless and fail l
AndrevanTonder wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the issue you mention. With my simple suggestion,
> a
> client import of 6.2 will match the bug-fixed 6.2.1, and import the latter,
> as
> desired.
>
That concept is messed up.
It assumes that the question "should 6.2.1 be used instead
of
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, John Cowan wrote:
> AndrevanTonder scripsit:
>
>> For example, the current specification allows one to specify that a
>> client program will work only with version (6 2) and not with version
>> (6 2 3) of some library.
>
> The issue arises in the reverse case, where 6.2 will n
AndrevanTonder scripsit:
> For example, the current specification allows one to specify that a
> client program will work only with version (6 2) and not with version
> (6 2 3) of some library.
The issue arises in the reverse case, where 6.2 will not work (because of
a bug rather than an API chan
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Shiro Kawai wrote:
>>> Suggested alternative #2
>>>
>>>
>>> Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs.
I would like to suggest
Suggested alternative #3:
-
Give the same syntax as . A match occurs if
matches u
>
>> Plus possibly the following shortcut: If instead of a procedure a
>> number n is given, it is treated like (lambda (version) (>= version
>> n)), since this is the most commonly used case.
>> then a request for version 1.3
> would mean 1.3 or 1.4 or 1.99 but not 2.22.
>
> The situation is
| Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:57:13 +0200
| From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_Axel_S=F8gaard?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| Shiro Kawai wrote:
|
| > Suggested alternative #2
| >
| >
| > Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs.
|
| In the case where you distribute y
From: Jens_Axel_Søgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Version reference syntax is overly complex.
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:57:13 +0200
> Shiro Kawai wrote:
>
> > Suggested alternative #2
> >
> >
> > Drop th
Shiro Kawai wrote:
> Suggested alternative #2
>
>
> Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs.
In the case where you distribute your program including
all used libraries, versions aren't terrible important.
However, if a library outside your control is updated,
t
>
> Suggested alternative #1
>
>
> Change the syntax to the following:
>
> Suggested alternative #2
>
>
> Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs.
>
>
I'd like to throw in #3, simplified version numbering. A is
an exact number. A is
> Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs.
+1
Shiro Kawai wrote:
> Why not? If we've found this issue is monstrously big, it
> probably is a good candidate to be moved to SRFI, unless
> we're really convinced that it is essential in r6rs. If we
> get a slim r6rs and a nice SRFI at the
From: AndrevanTonder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Version reference syntax is overly complex.
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Shiro Kawai wrote:
>
> > Suggested alternative #2
> > ---
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Shiro Kawai wrote:
> Suggested alternative #2
>
>
> Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs.
+1
(although by now it has grown so monstrous that it probably would be hard to
kill).
Andre
___
r6r
---
This message is a formal comment which was submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html
---
Submitter: Shiro Kawai ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Type of issues: Simplification
Priority: Minor
Component: Libraries (section 6.1)
Version of the r
29 matches
Mail list logo
