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)
|
> 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. This is a good point. It hasn't been necessary, because people have stuck with filenames that are supported on virtually all file systems. As I told Derick a while back, I favor a similar solution for R6RS libraries. That is, we should all agree to give our published libraries names that can be mapped directly to most file systems, without encoding, and ask those who fail to do so to rename their libraries as necessary. If we could come up with a fully general encoding mechanism, i.e., one that works for all existing and future filesystems, I might be more inclined to support encoding. But this doesn't appear to be possible, so I prefer the social solution. Kent