RE: Breakage with v 299

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

> I think the Cookbook should primarily be oriented
> towards the currently stable version, which still 
> means 208 right now.

I agree completely.  We should try to stay in sync
with the current release.

> It would be simple to add a field to the
> CookbookForm for the version which an entry applies 
> to.  That could at least classify the content, and 
> support pretty much any approach to keeping the 
> content current.  It would allow e.g. 299-specific 
> recipes to be added while 208 is still the current
> version.

I like this idea, since it would provide good
backwards compatibility (i.e., you could look at
a recipe and know immediately if it was useful for
your specific MzScheme installation.

> [ ...] the easiest way to achieve this might be
> to have a single combined implementation+version 
> field, which could offer choices like R5RS,
> R5RS+SRFI, PLT, PLT20x, PLT208, PLT299, Chicken,
> Chicken16x, SISC, SISC18x, etc.,

This seems like a good idea, but what about recipes
that apply to Chicken+PLT299, but don't work
elsewhere?  It seems like we could be in for a
combinometric explosion!

Perhaps we should implement something like the
"Geekcode", where we turn bits on or off depending on
whether the scheme implementation supports it :-)

-Brent


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl