I for one like the new change. I can specify
(import (rnrs base (6)))
If I need version six compatibility, or I can specify
(import (rnrs base))
If anything will do. I can even specify
(import (rnrs base (or (6) (7))))
If only 6 and 7 will work.
I think this will be particularly helpful when writing libraries that
support the Microsoft .NET framework, since we currently have version 1,
1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and upcoming 3.5. There is a lot of compatibility between
them, but some differences, and this will allow me to package up one file
with the different libraries in it. The users code only has to load a single
file, and use the import that selects the proper subset for his needs.
Brian C. Barnes.
-----Original Message-----
From: r6rs-discuss-bounces at lists.r6rs.org
[mailto:r6rs-discuss-bounces at lists.r6rs.org] On Behalf Of Ludovic "Court?s"
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:15
To: Michael Sperber
Cc: r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] What's up with the library names?
Hi,
Michael Sperber <sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> Actually, you don't have to type the (6), at least until R7RS comes out,
> even though it's probably safer.
This is equivalent to saying: "if you want your program to be
future-proof (and why wouldn't you want it?), always include the `(6)'".
Then how does this differ from typing `(r6rs ...)'?
I second Abdulaziz.
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
Received on Wed May 23 2007 - 20:37:35 UTC