Thomas Lord wrote: > This design decision rebels against industry best practices, for no good > reason.
Which best practices are you referring to? The reason I ask is that it sounds as though you're suggesting using URIs as library names in the source code of programs, but most languages don't do that. Particularly in the case of Scheme, there are real benefits to having library names be easily readable by Scheme programs, without requiring that those programs parse what amounts to a foreign serialization format. Note that the 5.91 draft did specify library names as URIs, but objections were raised about this, which the editors "became convinced by." It might be worth reviewing the list archives to see some of those objections, to avoid unnecessary repetition. That's not to say that there aren't some valid issues here that are not addressed by R6RS. However, many of those issues are really outside the scope of the normative part of R6RS. Note that the non-normative appendices include some recommendations about mapping of library names to resources, although they are not comprehensive. Anton _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
