RE: Future of the cookbook

Bruce Butterfield wrote:
> LGPL is fine.

I agree in principle (not that I've contributed much that needs licensing),
but I'm ignorant: does LGPL apply to documentation?

> > Differences PLT-R5RS are probably a book on their own. Square brackets
> > are an abomination not to be encouraged ;-)

An arguably useful abomination, though.  ;)

> Even after following the somewhat heated discussion on plt-scheme
> regarding define/let/arg evaluation order I'm pretty confident that PLT
> is a proper superset of R5RS and should be treated as such.

Don't start!  ;)  Put it this way, PLT follows a widespread de facto
standard in its one area of violation of R5RS, and one which might be
ratified in R6RS.

> That said, however, I think that the cookbook should be about developing
> specifically for PLT since it provides a useful environment for building
>   large systems and R5RS IMHO does not.

I agree - the big issue for me is library support.  If we can depend on
PLT's libraries, the cookbook can contain much more useful code.

SISC also has good library support, via Java, but achieving compatibility
between those two sets of libraries would be impractical, and a dependence
on Java libraries seems inappropriate for a Scheme cookbook.

> A "cookbook" should contain both
> simple and complex recipes that solve real problems and need to be as
> concrete as possible.

Yup.

Anton



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click