Re: scsh.net broken link(s)
Nunez Steve <[email protected]> Sun, 8 Mar 2009 21:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.scheme.scsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--0-2035364371-1236571560=:60080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > =0A> Plans yes, but we're short some manpower. Help would be quite welco= me!=0A> =0A=0AThe spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.=0A=0AWe don't kn= ow anything about the internals of Scheme. This kind of work would require = a significant ramp-up time to someone not familar with it, and even then th= ey'd be in-experienced in it.=0A=0AI can however offer support as a user: t= esting, feedback, writing articles, etc. We're embarking on a pretty big ro= ll-out of enterprise-wide system configuration. I'm going to try to sneak s= csh in wherever I can. If there's no major blow-ups, it could see widesprea= d usage on other projects.=0A=0ACheers,=0A - SteveN=0A=0A=0A=0A_________= _______________________=0AFrom: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>=0ATo: Mic= hael Sperber <[email protected]>=0ACc: [email protected]; Scsh Users <sc= [email protected]>=0ASent: Monday, March 9, 2009 7:43:55 AM=0ASubject: Re: = scsh.net broken link(s)=0A=0AMichael Sperber writes:=0A> [email protected] wri= tes:=0A> =0A> > Or, more specifically, are there any plans to port SCSH fro= m its=0A> > current Scheme 48 implementation to something more recent? Ver= sion=0A> > 1.8 released a month ago advertises 64-bit support.=0A> =0A> Pla= ns yes, but we're short some manpower. Help would be quite welcome!=0A> = =0A=0AWhere should the line of division between the two be? From chapter 9= =0Aof the manual:=0A=0A> Scheme 48=E2=80=99s POSIX interface differs from S= csh=E2=80=99s [11, 12] in several=0A> ways. The interface here lacks Scsh= =E2=80=99s high-level constructs and=0A> utilities, such as the process not= ation, awk procedure, and parsing=0A> utilities. Scheme 48 uses distinct ty= pes for some values that Scsh=0A> leaves as symbols or unboxed integers; th= ese include file types, file=0A> modes, and user and group ids. Many of the= names and other interface=0A> details are different, as well.=0A=0AThe hig= h-level stuff should be straightforward to port. For the=0Alow-level exter= nal interface, do we:=0A=0A1. Keep the scheme-with-scsh interface identical= to what we have now?=0A=0A2. Keep the scheme-with-scsh interface identical= to what we have now,=0Ato support backwards-compatibility, but implement i= t on top of=0Aanother "native" interface (e.g., package scheme48-with-scsh)= ?=0A=0A3. Rework the scheme-with-scsh interface from 0.6.7 to 1.8, to use= =0Athe 1.8 types and functions as much as possible (so only=0Ascheme48-with= -scsh exists)?=0A=0AFor the low-level internals, do we:=0A=0A1. Put into sc= heme-with-scsh everything not already implemented in=0Ascheme48?=0A=0A2. Ex= tend scheme48 to include everything scheme-with-scsh needs to=0Afunction?= =0A=0A> Scheme 48=E2=80=99s POSIX interface will likely change significantl= y in the=0A> future. The implementation is new and may have significant bug= s.=0A=0AIs this still true?=0A=0ADerek=0A=0A-- =0ADerek Upham=0Asand@blarg.= net=0A=0A=0A --0-2035364371-1236571560=:60080 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he= ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1= 0pt"><div>>=C2=A0<br>> Plans yes, but we're short some manpower.=C2=A0 Help= would be quite welcome!<br>>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>The spirit is = willing but the flesh is weak.</div><div><br></div><div>We don't know anyth= ing about the internals of Scheme. This kind of work would require a signif= icant ramp-up time to someone not familar with it, and even then they'd be = in-experienced in it.</div><div><br></div><div>I can however offer support = as a user: testing, feedback, writing articles, etc. We're embarking on a p= retty big roll-out of enterprise-wide system configuration. I'm going to tr= y to sneak scsh in wherever I can. If there's no major blow-ups, it could s= ee widespread usage on other projects.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</di= v><div>=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0- SteveN</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial, he= lvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica,= sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Tahoma"><hr size=3D"1"= ><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> "[email protected]" &l= t;[email protected]><br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> M= ichael Sperber <[email protected]><br><b><span style=3D"font-weigh= t: bold;">Cc:</span></b> [email protected]; Scsh Users <[email protected]= ><br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, March 9= , 2009 7:43:55 AM<br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span><= /b> Re: scsh.net broken link(s)<br></font><br>=0AMichael Sperber writes:<br= >> <a ymailto=3D"mailto:[email protected]" href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">sand= @blarg.net</a> writes:<br>> <br>> > Or, more specifically, are there any pl= ans to port SCSH from its<br>> > current Scheme 48 implementation to someth= ing more recent?=C2=A0 Version<br>> > 1.8 released a month ago advertises 6= 4-bit support.<br>> <br>> Plans yes, but we're short some manpower.=C2=A0 H= elp would be quite welcome!<br>> <br><br>Where should the line of division = between the two be?=C2=A0 From chapter 9<br>of the manual:<br><br>> Scheme = 48=E2=80=99s POSIX interface differs from Scsh=E2=80=99s [11, 12] in severa= l<br>> ways. The interface here lacks Scsh=E2=80=99s high-level constructs = and<br>> utilities, such as the process notation, awk procedure, and parsin= g<br>> utilities. Scheme 48 uses distinct types for some values that Scsh<b= r>> leaves as symbols or unboxed integers; these include file types, file<b= r>> modes, and user and group ids. Many of the names and other interface<br>> details are different, as well.<br><br>The high-level stuff= should be straightforward to port.=C2=A0 For the<br>low-level external int= erface, do we:<br><br> 1. Keep the scheme-with-scsh interface identical to = what we have now?<br><br> 2. Keep the scheme-with-scsh interface identical = to what we have now,<br> to support backwards-compatibility, but implement = it on top of<br> another "native" interface (e.g., package scheme48-with-sc= sh)?<br><br> 3. Rework the scheme-with-scsh interface from 0.6.7 to 1.8, to= use<br> the 1.8 types and functions as much as possible (so only<br> schem= e48-with-scsh exists)?<br><br>For the low-level internals, do we:<br><br> 1= . Put into scheme-with-scsh everything not already implemented in<br> schem= e48?<br><br> 2. Extend scheme48 to include everything scheme-with-scsh need= s to<br> function?<br><br>> Scheme 48=E2=80=99s POSIX interface will likely= change significantly in the<br>> future. The implementation is new and may have significant bugs.<br><br>Is this still true?<br><br>Derek<br><br>-- <= br>Derek Upham<br><a ymailto=3D"mailto:[email protected]" href=3D"mailto:sand@= blarg.net">[email protected]</a><br><br></div></div><div style=3D"position:fix= ed"></div></div><br>=0A=0A </body></html> --0-2035364371-1236571560=:60080--