RE: Cookbook release

--- Anton van Straaten <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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. 

Fair point.

> emphasizing SRFIs where possible doesn't make the
> Cookbook any more friendly to other implementations.

I would hope it still has some use, but this isn't worth
arguing over.

> 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

Well some might argue that other reactions are more
appropriate to Taylor's comments but that is beside the
point.

I think we need gratuitous PLTness -- it is one of our
aims.  For example Taylor's comments could have been
usefully integrated into the StructureChapter introduction
and it would be useful to eludicate the differences between
PLT structures (convenience syntax, inheritance etc.) and
SRFI records (portability).  If anyone can think of
something easily implementable in TWiki that's cool.  

I would like to support all Scheme systems in the distant
future.  I can imagine a system where you have a recipe and
multiple implementations in various Scheme language, and
user preferences control which implementation is shown. 
This would be nice but doesn't seem easy.  Moshi seems a
better platform for this stuff.  I'll be working on it in
the near future so hopefully this vapour will solidify 
soon.

Noel

=====
Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com
AIM: noelhwelsh


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush


-------------------------------------------------------
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_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click