more on finalization issue, and reference implementation
Shiro Kawai
(25 Aug 2005 02:39 UTC)
|
||
Re: more on finalization issue, and reference implementation
Michael Sperber
(25 Aug 2005 16:59 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: more on finalization issue, and reference implementation
Shiro Kawai
(28 Aug 2005 23:01 UTC)
|
||
Re: more on finalization issue, and reference implementation
Per Bothner
(25 Aug 2005 17:36 UTC)
|
||
Re: more on finalization issue, and reference implementation Michael Sperber (13 Sep 2005 12:25 UTC)
|
Re: more on finalization issue, and reference implementation Michael Sperber 13 Sep 2005 12:25 UTC
Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes: > It would be much appreciated if you could split it up. Could you suggest a division? I see four parts immediately: - primitive layer (including the basic condition hierarchy) - streams layer (including making transcoder codecs from translators) - ports layer (including making ports from readers and writers) - stream ports The tricky bit is what to do about the transcoders, which are shared between the stream layer and the ports layer. Choices are: - separate SRFI (but not useful independently) - put it in the primitive layer (but we can't do anything with them here) - put them in the streams layer (but that means the ports layer depends on the streams layer) - put them in both the streams layer and the ports layer (but, if there's a 1:1 correspondence between modules and SRFIs, this may cause pragmatics difficulties) If we're just talking about different modules, clearly the transcoders should be separate. Suggestions, anyone? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla