Truth in advertising
Alan Watson
(24 Jun 2004 00:05 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
campbell@xxxxxx
(24 Jun 2004 01:43 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
felix
(24 Jun 2004 05:07 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
Robby Findler
(24 Jun 2004 12:07 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
Alan Watson
(24 Jun 2004 17:33 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising Felix Winkelmann (25 Jun 2004 04:58 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
Alan Watson
(25 Jun 2004 16:12 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
Robby Findler
(25 Jun 2004 16:39 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
Alan Watson
(25 Jun 2004 16:59 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising
Bradd W. Szonye
(25 Jun 2004 18:51 UTC)
|
Re: Truth in advertising Felix Winkelmann 25 Jun 2004 04:58 UTC
Alan Watson wrote: > Robby Findler writes: > > >>> This SRFI cannot be supported by all Schemes. Therefore, by using it >>> you are restricting the portability of your code. >> >>Isn't this true, in principle, of all the SRFIs? > > > No and yes. > > It is certainly true that not all SRFIs *are* implemented in all > Schemes. However, most SRFIs *can* be implemented in all R5RS-compatible > Schemes, often trivially. This SRFI (and possibly certain others) > *cannot*. > > The following two examples illustrate the difference: > > If I write code that uses SRFI-1 and then discover that I want or need > to run the code in a Scheme that doesn't implement SRFI-1, I can > simply load Olin's reference implementation. > > If I write code that uses SRFI-55 and then discover that I want or > need to run the code in Scheme48, I am hosed. > If we restrict ourselves to SRFIs that can be implemented on any R5RS system without changes, we would get nowhere. cheers, felix