Hello, Andy Wingo <[email protected]> writes:
> While this was a noble sentiment, and a consistent strategy, it's not > the right thing IMO. Versions were not a well-considered addition to the > spec, and we should not feel compelled to (a) promote them, or (b) to > implement them ideally (according to their ideals). +1 In particular we could choose to ignore version specs altogether. (Ironically, given the tendency of WG1/2 to ignore R6RS, along with implementors stating they implement “languages descending from Scheme” as opposed to just “Scheme” [0], it may well be that ‘6’ will be the only version number ever used.) > In our case, my opinion is that we should change the rule to be, "the > first compatible version found in the path"; though perhaps we should > wait for confirmation from Ludovic. I’m a bit lost. As you said on IRC, we should probably start by looking at what other implementations do (for those implementations that resolve modules at run-time, that is.) Thanks, Ludo’. [0] http://www.racket-lang.org/new-name.html
