[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sun, 18 Jul 2021 17:16:04 +0300
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
Lassi: The fact that different Schemes have different conventions for
where their library files are is actually a great convenience to me when
developing SRFIs. All the actual code goes into files named *-impl.scm
(or multiple names if there are multiple files). Then each library file
or equivalent, which is where the differences are concentrated, is in an
implementation-specific place. The library file for (foo bar) will be at:
Ypsilon: foo/bar.sls, or foo/bar.ypsilon.sls if it is Ypsilon-specific
And since each of these needs to be slightly different, that's a Good Thing.
This is suboptimal: the meaning is obscured, and things work by accident
since you have only 4 Schemes and all of them happen to use different
naming conventions. If you add more Schemes, some of them will
R6RS implementations have a convention of appending the implementation's
name to the filename. For example,
<https://github.com/arcfide/chez-srfi/tree/master/%253a39> has the files:
parameters.sls ; Portable version of the code.
This is clearer and more likely to avoid clashes.
Best of all is the R7RS solution:
(cond-expand (chicken (include "foo.chicken.scm"))))