Re: scheme-script organization created Lassi Kortela 26 Jun 2021 12:02 UTC
Thanks for the feedback! > `scheme-script' is part of R6RS and is assumed to point to an > implementation of R6RS. I wouldn't reuse the name for interpreters of > other Scheme dialects as this can cause confusion or can clash with > existing R6RS implementations in the search path. scheme-script in the non-normative appendix, not in the normative standard. An implementation of R6RS (without further qualification) is also not useful for writing practical code with environmental dependencies. I would consider the ability to declare dependencies (listing the required libraries/modules/eggs; acceptable version ranges for each; supported RnRS editions; and supported Scheme implementations) inside the script file itself to be a requirement for a useful scheme-script. How to do that in detail should be worked out; a collection of real scripts is a good litmus that the spec is useful. > Of course, R6RS and R7RS are similar enough so that one can write a > script using their common syntax and semantics as long as the > `scheme-script' implementation has access to enough libraries (including > the base libraries `(rnrs base (6))' and `(scheme base)'). This would be a point in favor of a combined R6RS+R7RS compatible standard. But I've trolled enough about that for the time being :) > SRFI 22 suggests `scheme-XXX' where XXX corresponds to the version of > Scheme. IMHO that's going back in the direction the bad old days of general incompatibility :) We've standardized Scheme's library system, where before we used to have incompatible module systems in each implementation. We can standardize a cross-RnRS-compatible and cross-implementation-compatible scheme-script as well.