`scheme-script' and multiple Scheme installations
David Rush
(12 Mar 2001 08:27 UTC)
|
Re: `scheme-script' and multiple Scheme installations
sperber@xxxxxx
(20 Mar 2001 10:44 UTC)
|
Re: `scheme-script' and multiple Scheme installations David Rush (20 Mar 2001 11:36 UTC)
|
Re: `scheme-script' and multiple Scheme installations
sperber@xxxxxx
(20 Mar 2001 12:47 UTC)
|
Re: `scheme-script' and multiple Scheme installations David Rush 20 Mar 2001 11:36 UTC
xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: > >>>>> "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. And I still don't. Say I've already installed Scsh 0.6, which comes with the brand new SRFI-22 support and poerted my GWZ application to take advantage of the SRFI-22 compliant installation capabilities. I've wrapped eveything up in cond-expands, and I'm pretty confident that it's "portable". Joe Bloggs now D/Ls GWZ and installs it on his SRFI-22 system, which is Gambit. How likely is it to work? Well, if I have *really* done my homework, maybe pretty good. A more likely scenario is that I haven't actually run it under Gambit because there are too many implementations to have covered all of them in my testing. Whoops! there is an incompatibility. So I have to go and put the Scheme implementation specific stuff back into my configure.in, and I have gained nothing out of the SRFI-22 exercise except the standard parameter passing. OK, the example is a bit contrived and arguably GWZ has packaging bugs, but my point is that SRFI-22 didn't help me deal with them. I've got no guarantees beyond what I can acquire from inspecting the system through autoconf, and I'm still pretty much going to need to use autoconf to do the inspection (if only to verify that I've got a Scheme that I've actually tested). > David> none of R5RS, SRFI-0, or SRFI-7 provides > David> enough functionality to do significant scripting. > > I disagree with that from practical experience. To be fair, you *can* write highly portable code with just SRFI-0, I can't speak to SRFI-7, I don't use it and I haven't seen widespread support for it (although I haven't looked hard since it is even more of a meta-language than SRFI-0, and out-of-band to the executable code, to boot). > 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. I just feel that single-name doesn't provide enough, and in fact loses valuable information. Perhaps if 'scheme-script' maintained a registry of compliant installations on the system along with introspection facilities at the command line. e.g. scheme-script-srfi-0 --on Scsh --on Bigloo or perhaps something autoconf can use like: $scheme-script --substrate Scsh 0.6 Otherwise, It doesn't seem to add much value. OTOH, Perhaps I'm just falling in love with autoconf. Gripping hand is probably that this is a good opportunity to shake out non-SRFI compliant systems. Just my $0.02 david rush -- The Torah is written in black fire inscribed upon white fire - fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire and given from fire -- 3rd Century Palestinian Merkavah Haggadah