Re: find-versioned-module bugs

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> 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