Denis Washington scripsit:

> I was wondering how implementations are thought to resolve file names in
> module "include" forms: relative to the including source file or the
> current working directory? Only the former would be really useful IMO,
> but there is no mention of this concern in the draft. I know that file
> name resolution is actually out of scope for the report, but a sentence
> hinting to what is intended might be nice.

If I were an implementer, I'd do what gcc does: look in the directory
of the including file, then in a list of user-specified places, then
in a list of implementation-specified places.

> (If every implementation
> interprets this differently, "include" becomes useless.)

I don't really understand this claim.

--
I marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   cowan@ccil.org
before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports