Re: parameterized working-directory and changing it relatively FarÃ© 03 May 2020 10:23 UTC
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:15 AM John Cowan <email@example.com> wrote: > What is a "thin layer" (does it mean C structs are exposed to Scheme as bytevectors?) and what is "the operating system"? Just syscalls? Posix has 1192 APIs and no distinctions between part 2 and part 3 of the man pages. And that doesn't begin to cover the function of the 338 LInux system calls. Plenty of room for arguments there. In short, what "makes sense"? > There is some wiggle room, but not much. - Yes, you might want to standardize a couple of layers of abstractions for your low-level APIs: bytes vs something more structured at the C level vs something integrated with some heap abstraction, etc. That's still a handful number of abstraction layers, compared to 6.022e23 different present and futures Scheme implementations. - You don't have to define "the operating system" — you just have to agree that you'll track the foreign APIs. - It's totally OK to be lazy about standardizing the wrappers for those APIs. You can have a 1192-color rainbow of intermediate levels of "standards" on the way of supporting Posix. Do the work in whichever order. The important part is: by doing the work this way, you only have to do it once, instead of umpteen times, with MUCH less room argument, by fewer people at once. > In fact, there is only one non-Posix OS still standing, on which much (though not all) of SRFI 170 can be implemented anyway. Which are you thinking of? Between real-time embedded systems, mobile systems and server "unikernels", there are plenty of non-POSIX options. Whether it makes sense to design Scheme for them is another question. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org When my time on earth is completed, I want to go quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather ... not screaming in terror, like his passengers.