five problems with this draft SRFI
William D Clinger
(26 Sep 2009 01:20 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Abdulaziz Ghuloum
(26 Sep 2009 05:58 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(26 Sep 2009 15:42 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(27 Sep 2009 02:43 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Shiro Kawai
(27 Sep 2009 03:16 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(29 Sep 2009 02:32 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI William D Clinger (30 Sep 2009 01:49 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(30 Sep 2009 03:22 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(30 Sep 2009 03:51 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(30 Sep 2009 06:33 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
William D Clinger
(30 Sep 2009 13:11 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(01 Oct 2009 09:10 UTC)
|
Derick Eddington wrote: > As you suggested, I want to convey that files conforming to this SRFI > must have only one library per file, and that Scheme systems which > implement this SRFI are free to support files which do not conform to > this SRFI. Thanks! I greatly appreciate that clarification. By the way, my remark about the one-to-infinite nature of the mapping from library names to file names assumed that implementations were supposed to search all of the potentially infinite file names whose version numbers might match. From your remark that the mapping is only one-to-many but not one-to-infinite, I infer that systems don't have to search for file names that include version numbers, but I'm not certain of that conclusion. Please advise. Will