RE: Breakage with v 299

Brent Fulgham wrote:

> > [ ...] 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!

Yeah, I figured the explosion would be inevitable eventually, although this
particular requirement hadn't occurred to me.

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

Or the Scheme hacker's equivalent!  The TWiki forms feature limits our
capabilities here, but we could perhaps embed an s-expression on each page
instead, and come up with a small declarative language to describe the
compatibility of each recipe.  So the above might become something like:

  (works-with (or (chicken (> 1.33)) (plt 299)))

There's some overlap with SRFI-0, maybe.

Anton



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click