On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 12:42 +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> >>> SRFI-59 and SLIB use the environment variable SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH to
> >>> configure their single Scheme-source library directory. If SRFI-103
> >>> appropriates SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH for its use, it will cause SRFI-59
> >>> and SLIB supporting implementations (of which there are many) to fail.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is a conflict in practice if this SRFI uses the name
> > SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH since the intersection of users/implementations that
> > use both R6RS and SLIB is practically 0.0.
>
> Larceny supports both SLIB and R6RS.
>
> I have both a number of R5RS implementations with SLIB, and a few R6RS
> implementations installed at the same time; and this is not that rare.

Yeah, conflict with SLIB would happen.

> > The whole idea of using "SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH" is to say where your
> > Scheme files are.
>
> SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH in this SRFI only specifies where R6RS libraries
> are. If R^NRS libraries (for some N > 6) will not be compatible, you'll
> end up with the same kind of conflict.

This SRFI intends to be usable by any dialect with library names being a
sequence of symbols.  That is why, in the Abstract, I wrote: "intended
for implementations of the R6RS, and perhaps other Scheme dialects".  Do
you think that should be made clearer?  I'm thinking I should add
something like the first sentence of this paragraph to somewhere in this
SRFI's document.

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