[r6rs-discuss] What's up with the library names?
Brian C. Barnes
bcbarnes at austin.rr.com
Thu May 24 04:07:37 EDT 2007
Unfortunately, with all but the most trivial cases, I would have to agree.
It also occurs to me, however, that it is redundant to encode the version
number in the library name when there is a separate, and quite powerful,
version specification field. It "feels" more consistent.
Additionally, it would be straight-forward enough to create a library named
(r6rs) that wraps (rnrs (6)) if you really wanted to. With the newer 5.93
naming scheme, I have a choice. With the older 5.92 naming scheme, I do not.
I guess it really comes down to the question of whether or not the
"standard" libraries will be stable enough (going forward, since libraries
are new with this draft of the report) that having this kind of flexibility
is useful. Perhaps leaving the version number out of the name will help
limit the amount of "breaking change" introduced in the future?
From: Ludovic "Courtès" [mailto:ludovic.courtes at laas.fr]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 02:39
To: Brian C. Barnes
Cc: 'Michael Sperber'; r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] What's up with the library names?
"Brian C. Barnes" <bcbarnes at austin.rr.com> writes:
> If I need version six compatibility, or I can specify
> (import (rnrs base))
> If anything will do.
The thing is: you cannot know in advance whether anything will do.
More information about the r6rs-discuss