Re: Cookbook release

Anton van Straaten wrote:

>Announcing to plt-scheme is fine with me.
>
>BTW, I'm going to be out for the next 6-8 hours, so any server-admin type
>support will have to wait till I get back.
>
>Looking forward, there are some issues I think we should take care of before
>announcing to c.l.s.  The announcement should make the PLT focus very
>clear - the #scheme denizens seemed to have the impression that the Cookbook
>was intended to be much more implementation-neutral.  As Felix pointed out,
>emphasizing SRFIs where possible doesn't make the Cookbook any more friendly
>to other implementations.
>  
>
I disagree. It might be true that you can't use (require (lib "2.ss" 
"srfi")) in other implementations, but this
ought to be a minor problem, compared to the actual content of the 
recipe. A SRFI solution ought to run on
other implementations too, the only difference being the way to specify 
how to use the given SRFI. Hopefully
a module system in R6RS will solve the problem, but until then the 
current solution is better-than-nothing.

>We may also need a more explicit policy about allowing "gratuitous"
>PLT-specificness to exist, if we want to allow that, since otherwise
>reactions like Taylor's may be common: "why is xxx PLT-specific, you can do
>it with a SRFI like this".  If someone wants to document some PLT-specific
>functionality, even if it has a SRFI counterpart, we perhaps need to be able
>to mark the topic as "intentionally PLT-specific".
>  
>
After some initial reluctance I agree with you. It could be made 
visually clear by changing the
background color.

-- 
Jens Axel Søgaard




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idP47&alloc_id808&op=click