Establishing a Scheme registry Lassi Kortela (31 Jul 2020 08:14 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 08:39 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Lassi Kortela (31 Jul 2020 08:49 UTC)
Prior art: SRFI 97 Lassi Kortela (31 Jul 2020 08:59 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 09:18 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 09:20 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Lassi Kortela (31 Jul 2020 09:39 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 09:58 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Lassi Kortela (31 Jul 2020 10:13 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 10:18 UTC)
Python PEPs Lassi Kortela (31 Jul 2020 10:23 UTC)
Re: Python PEPs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 11:12 UTC)
Re: Python PEPs Lassi Kortela (04 Aug 2020 07:04 UTC)
Re: Python PEPs hga@xxxxxx (04 Aug 2020 09:28 UTC)
Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 13:31 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2020 09:13 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry John Cowan (01 Aug 2020 03:49 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 Aug 2020 06:29 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry John Cowan (01 Aug 2020 13:19 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 Aug 2020 13:48 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Amirouche Boubekki (01 Aug 2020 13:55 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Arthur A. Gleckler (31 Jul 2020 20:09 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry hga@xxxxxx (31 Jul 2020 20:34 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry John Cowan (01 Aug 2020 01:58 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Amirouche Boubekki (31 Jul 2020 09:04 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry hga@xxxxxx (31 Jul 2020 20:52 UTC)
Re: Establishing a Scheme registry Lassi Kortela (01 Aug 2020 19:50 UTC)

Re: Prior art: SRFI 97 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 31 Jul 2020 09:57 UTC

Am Fr., 31. Juli 2020 um 11:40 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> > Please note that this is not the process I have proposed. Instead of
> > adding to some not formally archived data file, a new version of SRFI
> > 97 would have been published (say with each iteration of R7RS-large),
> > obsoleting the respectively previous one.
>
> Right. But then you'd get many (for example, yearly) differently
> numbered versions of SRFI 97. Not such a big problem on 1-2 a year
> timescale, but it adds up over a decade.

SRFI numbers are cheap.

> > PS SRFI 97 is obsolete anyway when it comes to R7RS systems.
>
> But R6RS is not obsolete; it's a parallel version of the language. It's
> a matter of taste whether it's better, worse, or equally good as R7RS.

That wasn't my point. I wanted to say that it would need a new SRFI
version anyway.

> One of the main virtues of a Scheme registry would be to help keep a
> stable set of identifiers instead of coining new names for the same
> things in new standards and implementations.

Apparently, the inventors of R7RS thought differently. :) There have
built a few IMHO needless incompatibilities and changes from R6RS into
the new version.

Marc