| Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:57:13 +0200 | From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jens_Axel_S=F8gaard?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Shiro Kawai wrote: | | > Suggested alternative #2 | > ------------------------ | > | > Drop the whole library versioning idea from r6rs. | | In the case where you distribute your program including | all used libraries, versions aren't terrible important. | | However, if a library outside your control is updated, | then it is better to get a library version error than | some random runtime error.
I disagree. My program may use only one procedure from the changed library; chances are good that the change wouldn't affect the procedure it uses. Or the library change may have been done in a manner which is backwards compatible (eg. added new procedures). We shouldn't be arguing from first principles when we have long experience with multi-module Scheme libraries -- SLIB is a Scheme library where nearly all module changes are backward compatible. Modules with substantial, incompatible API differences are given different module names. The library error you suggest would cause my programs to stop working when they would have otherwise worked correctly. R6RS would be the language of gratuitious library errors. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
