Several comments shivers@xxxxxx (10 Mar 2001 02:57 UTC)
Re: Several comments Per Bothner (10 Mar 2001 03:48 UTC)
Re: Several comments sperber@xxxxxx (10 Mar 2001 08:50 UTC)
Re: Several comments shivers@xxxxxx (10 Mar 2001 17:23 UTC)
Re: Several comments Martin Gasbichler (11 Mar 2001 14:31 UTC)
Re: Several comments Marc Feeley (20 Mar 2001 16:14 UTC)
Re: Several comments sperber@xxxxxx (20 Mar 2001 16:33 UTC)
Re: Several comments Marc Feeley (20 Mar 2001 17:11 UTC)
Re: Several comments sperber@xxxxxx (22 Mar 2001 08:27 UTC)
Re: Several comments Marc Feeley (22 Mar 2001 13:05 UTC)
Re: Several comments sperber@xxxxxx (22 Mar 2001 13:29 UTC)
Re: Several comments Marc Feeley (22 Mar 2001 15:06 UTC)
Re: Several comments sperber@xxxxxx (22 Mar 2001 15:11 UTC)
Re: Several comments Marc Feeley (22 Mar 2001 15:28 UTC)
Re: Several comments Per Bothner (22 Mar 2001 17:01 UTC)
Re: Several comments Marc Feeley (22 Mar 2001 18:22 UTC)

Re: Several comments Per Bothner 10 Mar 2001 03:59 UTC

xxxxxx@cc.gatech.edu writes:

> 5. The draft says
>      In the case of -srfi7 all specifications of filenames (marked by
>      <filename> in the syntax of SRFI 7) are strings containing Unix-style
>      filenames relative to the directory the script resides in.
>
>    Err... are you *sure* you want to do that? Invariably, a relative
>    pathname in Unix means relative to the process' cwd. You are changing that
>    rule, *only* in the case of code appearing in a Scheme script.

And the C pre-processor:  #include "foo.h"
Maybe the same logic applies.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/