From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: find-versioned-module bugs Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:12:06 +0200 Message-ID: <874oh3hovt.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276643640 20788 80.91.229.12 (15 Jun 2010 23:14:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:14:00 +0000 (UTC) To: bug-guile@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 16 01:13:58 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOfKN-00056S-1H for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:13:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42104 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOfKG-0003eG-Sj for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:13:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50549 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOfJU-00031t-7E for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:13:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOfIu-0005Np-Ic for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:12:25 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:41385) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOfIu-0005NC-DG for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:12:24 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOfIp-0004dV-61 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:12:19 +0200 Original-Received: from acces.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:12:19 +0200 Original-Received: from ludo by acces.bordeaux.inria.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:12:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): No such file or directory Original-Lines: 30 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: acces.bordeaux.inria.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 28 Prairial an 218 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+bjx3hxrvF8cxPLCBHus1mx6FA4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:4665 Archived-At: Hello, Andy Wingo writes: > While this was a noble sentiment, and a consistent strategy, it's not > the right thing IMO. Versions were not a well-considered addition to the > spec, and we should not feel compelled to (a) promote them, or (b) to > implement them ideally (according to their ideals). +1 In particular we could choose to ignore version specs altogether. (Ironically, given the tendency of WG1/2 to ignore R6RS, along with implementors stating they implement “languages descending from Scheme” as opposed to just “Scheme” [0], it may well be that ‘6’ will be the only version number ever used.) > In our case, my opinion is that we should change the rule to be, "the > first compatible version found in the path"; though perhaps we should > wait for confirmation from Ludovic. I’m a bit lost. As you said on IRC, we should probably start by looking at what other implementations do (for those implementations that resolve modules at run-time, that is.) Thanks, Ludo’. [0] http://www.racket-lang.org/new-name.html