On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 07:40 +0200, Michele Simionato wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derick > Eddington<[email protected]> wrote: > > R6RS's versioning-in-library-names is complicated to the point of being > > flawed [1], unfortunately. > > What about your SRFI-would be? Will it appear eventually, with some > alternative > proposal for versioning or will it give up versioning, or did you renounce to > propose it altogether (I hope not)?
I don't currently know what I'm going to do with it. I'm waiting to see what settles regarding versioning. I really wanted to give R6RS's versioning a chance, and I hope anyone (perhaps the persons who put it in R6RS) can tell us how it's supposed to work, but I'm virtually convinced we have to abandon any sort of versioning in library names/imports. I don't want to be in the middle of fights over R6RS-non-conformance about this issue, at least not alone, because I don't feel knowledgeable or experienced enough about the issues involved. Whatever happens with versioning, we still need a standard for resolving library names to file names, so I plan to resubmit it eventually, maybe without any versioning, and maybe changed to fit, if necessary, with the library-package manager being brainstormed. For anybody who doesn't already know who is interested in working on a library-package manager, my no-longer-proposed SRFI proposal is at: https://code.launchpad.net/~derick-eddington/+junk/library-files and I think the document mentions things worth keeping in mind when designing a library-package manager. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
