Re: upcoming revision, need feedback R. Kent Dybvig (11 Jan 2010 20:52 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington (12 Jan 2010 02:11 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback R. Kent Dybvig (12 Jan 2010 03:52 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Thomas Bushnell BSG (12 Jan 2010 04:24 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington (12 Jan 2010 06:18 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Thomas Bushnell BSG (12 Jan 2010 06:27 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington (12 Jan 2010 07:05 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Thomas Bushnell BSG (12 Jan 2010 07:16 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington (12 Jan 2010 09:00 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback R. Kent Dybvig (27 Jan 2010 20:58 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington (28 Jan 2010 00:45 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Vitaly Magerya (28 Jan 2010 10:39 UTC)
Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington (28 Jan 2010 17:45 UTC)

Re: upcoming revision, need feedback Derick Eddington 12 Jan 2010 09:00 UTC

On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 23:16 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 23:05 -0800, Derick Eddington wrote:

> > I think the rest of your message is failing to understand the purpose of
> > this SRFI.
> >
>
> Why do you suppose C has never specified any mapping between #include <>
> directives and directory layouts?  Not even Posix has one.  This has not
> hampered C's usability or portability.

I don't think I'm familiar enough to say.

I do know what the current situation with R6RS library files on Unixoids
and Windoze is: the names and directory structure of library files, not
their source-code contents, are not fully portable because different
R6RS systems do not implement the same method of finding them, and this
SRFI will fix that.

--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------