[R6RS] Library / filesystem mapping

[Anton van Straaten]

Kent wrote:
> What will the name of the file (last pathname component) actually be?  Say
> for (r6rs io simple (6)), are you envsioning one of the following:
> 
>   rnrs/io/simple/6.sls
>   rnrs/io/6/simple.sls
> 
> or something different?  I think I prefer the latter myself.

In the "version last" approach, the latter was what I had in mind, 
although it was that switching of the leaf name and version number that 
originally led me to consider moving the version up to the root level, 
since it seemed somewhat strange to stick it in the middle of the path.

I thought Will's suggestion was good:

> I'd question whether version numbers should even
> be represented as directories.  The most recent
> version of library (rnrs foo) could be in
> .../rnrs/foo.slf with the version number in its
> source code, and older versions could have names
> like .../rnrs/foo.6.5.4.slf .

This keeps the version number last without creating purely numeric 
filenames, and also eliminates at least one layer of directory 
hierarchy.  You'd have "rnrs/io/simple.6.sls".  Multiple versions of the 
same library could reside in the same directory.  Does anyone object to 
this approach?

Anton