[r6rs-discuss] hello.0.4.2.sls vs. hello-0.4.2.sls

From: AndrevanTonder <andre>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:10:11 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, John Cowan wrote:

> AndrevanTonder scripsit:
>
>>> No. The name may contain hyphens but not the version, so the last
>>> hyphen delimits the version from the name.
>>
>> Unless there is no version, as in (foo-1 ()) => foo-1.sls
>
> The situation is symmetrical: under the GNU rules, a library name
> may not contain a hyphen followed by a digit, whereas under the R5.95
> rules, a library name may not contain a dot followed by a digit.
>
> So we should look to current practice in the archive community,
> which strongly favors the GNU rules. Entia non sunt multiplicanda
> praeter necessitam.

If libraries were files, yes. But this whole discussion is based
on an assumption that a 1-1 library->file mapping is a good idea,
with which many will not agree. It is often necessary to separate out
a small auxiliary library from another for no organizational
reason other than to satisfy macro-phases, and in my experience
it can damage readability and comprehensibility quite badly
to have to put such an auxiliary library in a separate file,
even assuming the existence of the postulated source tools.

But why is r6rs even wasting its time with these appendices?

It seems as if r6rs is simply adding cruft upon cruft for no
better reason than that someone did the admittedly hard work
of thinking stuff up and writing stuff down and cannot now
bring themselves to discard it. I have sympathy with the
reluctance of an author to throw out his babies, having been
there myself, but really!

Andre
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 16:10:11 UTC