Re: srfi-0 and srfi-7
Michael Sperber <sperber-jNDFPZUTrfQQDnmTUQnR1uqEdJ8o/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.schematics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil W Van Dyke <[email protected]> writes: Neil> I think there should also be no reason, in a language with Scheme's Neil> syntactic power, that I can't have a single source code file that Neil> captures decisions I have made about how to get it to work well with Neil> different extensions of several Scheme implementations. All I'm saying is that SRFI 7 isn't a good way to do that. Besides that, I'm not sure why it needs to be a single source file. It's customary and good practice in other languages to encapsulate platform-specific stuff into clearly identifiable, separate entities. I believe that what you suggest, in the long run, leads to hard-to-maintain software. I've sure seen a lot of that in practice. Is this a political statement? I don't know. It does relate to design. I would like the appearance of SRFI 7 to denote "here comes a piece of code written in R5RS + SRFIs." That's something of technical usefulness. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X. From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the one installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504