Several comments
shivers@xxxxxx
(10 Mar 2001 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments Per Bothner (10 Mar 2001 03:48 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
sperber@xxxxxx
(10 Mar 2001 08:50 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
shivers@xxxxxx
(10 Mar 2001 17:23 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Martin Gasbichler
(11 Mar 2001 14:31 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Marc Feeley
(20 Mar 2001 16:14 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
sperber@xxxxxx
(20 Mar 2001 16:33 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Marc Feeley
(20 Mar 2001 17:11 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
sperber@xxxxxx
(22 Mar 2001 08:27 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Marc Feeley
(22 Mar 2001 13:05 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
sperber@xxxxxx
(22 Mar 2001 13:29 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Marc Feeley
(22 Mar 2001 15:06 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
sperber@xxxxxx
(22 Mar 2001 15:11 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Marc Feeley
(22 Mar 2001 15:28 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Per Bothner
(22 Mar 2001 17:01 UTC)
|
Re: Several comments
Marc Feeley
(22 Mar 2001 18:22 UTC)
|
xxxxxx@cc.gatech.edu writes: > 5. The draft says > In the case of -srfi7 all specifications of filenames (marked by > <filename> in the syntax of SRFI 7) are strings containing Unix-style > filenames relative to the directory the script resides in. > > Err... are you *sure* you want to do that? Invariably, a relative > pathname in Unix means relative to the process' cwd. You are changing that > rule, *only* in the case of code appearing in a Scheme script. And the C pre-processor: #include "foo.h" Maybe the same logic applies. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/