Re: scsh.net broken link(s)

Michael Sperber writes:
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> > Or, more specifically, are there any plans to port SCSH from its
> > current Scheme 48 implementation to something more recent?  Version
> > 1.8 released a month ago advertises 64-bit support.
> 
> Plans yes, but we're short some manpower.  Help would be quite welcome!
> 

Where should the line of division between the two be?  From chapter 9
of the manual:

> Scheme 48’s POSIX interface differs from Scsh’s [11, 12] in several
> ways. The interface here lacks Scsh’s high-level constructs and
> utilities, such as the process notation, awk procedure, and parsing
> utilities. Scheme 48 uses distinct types for some values that Scsh
> leaves as symbols or unboxed integers; these include file types, file
> modes, and user and group ids. Many of the names and other interface
> details are different, as well.

The high-level stuff should be straightforward to port.  For the
low-level external interface, do we:

 1. Keep the scheme-with-scsh interface identical to what we have now?

 2. Keep the scheme-with-scsh interface identical to what we have now,
 to support backwards-compatibility, but implement it on top of
 another "native" interface (e.g., package scheme48-with-scsh)?

 3. Rework the scheme-with-scsh interface from 0.6.7 to 1.8, to use
 the 1.8 types and functions as much as possible (so only
 scheme48-with-scsh exists)?

For the low-level internals, do we:

 1. Put into scheme-with-scsh everything not already implemented in
 scheme48?

 2. Extend scheme48 to include everything scheme-with-scsh needs to
 function?

> Scheme 48’s POSIX interface will likely change significantly in the
> future. The implementation is new and may have significant bugs.

Is this still true?

Derek

-- 
Derek Upham
[email protected]