On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ramana Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm glad to see you've put so much work into this =) I hope your issue > with multiple versions is solved soon. (Did you write exactly what it > is anywhere?) > > This is probably now a new topic: What about multiple libraries per > file? The proposed SRFI 100 explains that the idea is not worthwhile. > There are two uses which may have other solutions that you can tell me > about: > 1. In the absence of meta define, a small library you can import can > let you share code between macro definitions. It can be a hassle to > have to keep this small library in a separate file. (I guess this is > related to the next point). > 2. To transfer a library that actually has a few dependencies, you > need to send multiple files. I guess this is what "tar" is for. Is > there any other solution?
I agree with Ramana. I would be fine if having multiple libraries in the same file would be restricted to scripts (.ss extension). If a library is intended to be of general use it can be extracted from the script and put in its own file later on. Conversely, multiple libraries could be packed together and the application shipped as a single script.
