>>>>> "David" == David Rush <xxxxxx@bellsouth.net> writes:

David> I just don't see how forcing them all to use a single name in 'exec'
David> space will help anything. I'd prefer to look at 'scheme-script' as a
David> meta-name, because frankly, none of R5RS, SRFI-0, or SRFI-7 provides
David> enough functionality to do significant scripting.

I disagree with that from practical experience.  Moreover, SRFI 7
gives you conditional access to the rest.  The "single name" (several
in the next revision) is a central aspect of the SRFI, I'd say.

David> Perhaps the *logical* conclusion is that this SRFI is misguided, but I
David> don't really think so. The standardization of command-line args and
David> invocation conventions would greatly ease the mental burden of writing
David> scripts for *any* implementation (since *every* implementation must
David> address those issues). I would just like to see the door left open for
David> utilizing multiple implementations.

Sure.  The SRFI doesn't preclude this at all.  A Scheme implementation
might very well say:  "We provide a special executable called
"scheme-pro-xl" which supports waffled gadgets and giffled widgets
with the command-line syntax specified in SRFI 22."

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla