Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

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)

Re: five problems with this draft SRFI William D Clinger 30 Sep 2009 01:48 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