On Oct 1, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Göran Weinholt wrote:

> Hello Schemers,
>
> I'm wondering what my workflow will look like if I want to write
> libraries that work with SRFI-103. Since I have versions in all my
> library forms, it seems like I'd have to rename my files whenever I
> change a version number.

Yes.  It does seem like it.

> I would need to write a save-hook or it would get boring pretty fast.

This would add too much clutter. (and I use vim, so, no fancy hooks for
me)

> I suspect that I'd also need to abandon the YYYYMMDD part of my
> version
> numbers, or I'd end up with quite a lot of files.

I did raise this issue outside of this mailing list and I was told that
people don't change library version numbers that often, which obviously
is not the case in your example.

I'm still standing by my position that library versions should not be
included in the file name.

> So is the idea that I would be keeping versioned filenames in my
> bazaar
> repository, or would they be renamed to include a version by a package
> manager?

We should not assume the existence of a package manager.  Also, you
won't be using a package manager when working with your own libraries,
right?  Usually, you work on your libraries locally and then, in a
separate step, package it together for distribution.  You won't want
to add the package manager to your workflow.

> Also, SCHEME_LIBRARY_SEARCH_PATHS is rather long. How about SLSPATH?

I think it is long.  I'd be happier with SCHEME_PATH (Derick likes
plurals and hates unix) or SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH.  The work SEARCH is
definitely not adding anything you don't already understand from the
word PATH.

Aziz,,,