Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

compilability of scripts Marc Feeley (10 Mar 2001 17:33 UTC)
Re: compilability of scripts sperber@xxxxxx (20 Mar 2001 10:55 UTC)
Re: compilability of scripts Marc Feeley (20 Mar 2001 12:43 UTC)

Re: compilability of scripts Marc Feeley 20 Mar 2001 12:43 UTC

> Marc>    Alternatively, this search for the file to load could be done by
> Marc>    "scheme-script" only if the script file argument has no extension
> Marc>    (under UNIX you can only invoke a script with the same extension as
> Marc>    its filename, but under Windows, scripts must have the extension
> Marc>    ".BAT" or ".CMD" and can be invoked with or without the extension).
> Marc>    So, a script "S.scm" will always load "S.scm", but a script "S" may
> Marc>    load "S.fasl", "S.foobar", "S.bat", "S", etc.
> Is it really necessary to put something like this in the SRFI
> document?  After all, the details of this are likely
> necessarily implementation-dependent, and the SRFI surely doesn't
> prevent an implementation from supporting something like this
> without losing portability of the script source code.

I believe that such an implementation would not be SRFI 22 compliant.
Currently the SRFI says that

     scheme-script filename ...

will load the Scheme script in the file "filename".  If a system loads
the file "filename.o1" instead, then that is surely not conformant.

If you want scripts to be compilable, SRFI 22 has to provide for this