Hi,
Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> writes:
> You may be amused to learn then that the definition included a read syntax
> based on unix file systems and therefore easily understood as relative URIs.
> Thus, the module name (foo bar) could also be usefully written as (something
> like, I forget the details) #/foo/bar.
Yes, I know, but this syntax didn't live long, probably because Scheme
isn't about inventing ad hoc syntaxes for each usage pattern one comes
up with. Parentheses are very versatile. :-)
> Were I redoing that design today, roughly a decade later -- and apparently
> that is the path I'm on -- I would just go all out and pick (perhaps
> slightly
> decorated) URIs for the surface syntax (at least).
SRFI-84 discusses this and the conclusion was [0]:
* Basing library identifiers on globally assigned identifiers (such as
domain names or email addresses) is problematic, because you may stop
using or lose control of your domain name or email address. (And it
just moves the responsibility for getting you a unique identifier on
to some already existing system such as the domain name system).
This applies notably to Java-like DNS-based library names. Did you have
something else in mind?
Thanks,
Ludovic.
[0]
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-84/mail-archive/msg00028.html
Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 05:42:51 UTC