>>>>> "Olin" == shivers  <xxxxxx@cc.gatech.edu> writes:

Olin>    Why?  The cost is negligible, the benefits substantial, and the
Olin>    alternative you propose is way baroque.

Olin> Baroque, to me, is firing up a whole interpreter simply to execute the
Olin> interpreter I orginally had in mind. That is applying way more resources to
Olin> the task than it needs, by orders of magnitude.

Olin> Note, again, that I'm not saying remove the ability to do so. I'm simply
Olin> saying that if you introduce one extra switch -- which is already implemented
Olin> in fairly portable code -- you can also support direct execution.

Adding / filename makes only sense if we have a standard location for
scheme-script. But can you honestly imagine this will *ever* exist? I
can't.

And adding / filename doesn't come for free as you suggested: It will
complicate the SRFI and therefore be a potential source for
confusion. The Most General Design (tm) doesn't imply best usability.

--
Martin