>From: Derick Eddington <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:38:06 -0700

> I think the ability to analyze a listing of the path names under a
> directory tree to know the names of all the libraries located in that
> tree is worth having single-library files.  That analysis is
> accomplished by recognizing the .sls extension and mapping .sls path
> names to library names.  I believe this is worth designing for because
> then people and programs can look at only a listing of path names and
> know all the libraries, the actual file contents are not needed, and an
> additional "manifest" file correlating files to contained libraries is
> not necessary.

Version numbers aside (which I feel ambivalent), limiting
single-library files *in this srfi* doesn't hurt, I think.

Later we can come up another srfi with multi-library
file, attaching different suffix (*.sla for Scheme Library
Archive?).

My only concern is that this path suspiciously seems
similar to Java's *.class and *.jar files...

--shiro