Denis Washington scripsit:

> If a few implementations decide to use the working directory as base for
> "include" file names - which wouldn't be such far-fetched decision,
> given that "load" works the that way on most systems - one couldn't rely
> on, e.g., the including file's directory to be searched. Which would be
> bad. (However, I might overestimate the likeliness of this happening.)

That would indeed be bad.  I've added this note to trunk:

# Implementations are encouraged to search for files in the directory
# which contains the including file, and to provide a way for users to
# specify other directories to search.

LOAD pretty much has to use the working directory, given that it is
performed at run time, when the identity of the file doing the loading has
(typically) been forgotten.

--
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],        John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
struggling for life in the water, and when      cowan@ccil.org
he has reached ground encumbers him with help?
        --Samuel Johnson

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