Anton van Straaten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > AndrevanTonder wrote: >> I agree that symbol lists are more Schemely than URIs. However, in >> comparison to Oleg's compound names, draft r6rs compound >> library names would be significantly more difficult to integrate with >> lexical scoping and hygiene in any future extension allowing lexical >> libraries (though that is probably forever off the table, right?).
"Lexical libraries" would be different from the current libraries in various ways, simply because they fulfill different purposes. Specifically, they don't have to serve as a distribution or configuration mechanism, which is exactly why the naming requirements for them are different than for R6RS libraries. So I don't see any problem here. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
