Stephen Pelc wrote:
> However,
> many of these actions are better performed by the consumer.

Now I understand what you mean with consumer. You mean words like
OPEN-FILE and INCLUDED that consume file names, right?

At the start of this proposal I thought so, too. But as I worked
through it, I found that it actually makes more sense to add the
directory to the file name at the place where the file name occurs:

* The main reason is that the programmer specifying the file name
knows relative to what directory it is, so it makes sense to specify
that along with the file name; in the current proposal they do this
by specifying the file name with F" (for include-directory-relative
names) or with S" (for other names), and possibly in the future with
FS" or somesuch.

With the TransFileName modes, the programmer would have to pass that
knowledge separately to the consumer, and the modes are designed to
make this particularly inconvenient in the (admittedly rare) case
where the consumer is not directly adjacent to the producer.

* In the (admittedly rare) case where the include directory is
different at the producer and at the consumer, the include directory
of the producer should be used for the reasons above, but it is not
available at the consumer.

* The implementation is easier: All consumers can stay exactly as they
are. We are just adding new ways to produce file names.

- anton