Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Lassi Kortela (24 Oct 2019 08:00 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (24 Oct 2019 09:49 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment John Cowan (24 Oct 2019 13:30 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Lassi Kortela (24 Oct 2019 13:55 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment John Cowan (24 Oct 2019 16:46 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Amirouche Boubekki (25 Oct 2019 10:40 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Arthur A. Gleckler (24 Oct 2019 19:49 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment John Cowan (24 Oct 2019 19:54 UTC)
Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Arthur A. Gleckler (24 Oct 2019 17:31 UTC)

Re: Level of SRFI traffic at the moment Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 24 Oct 2019 09:49 UTC

Am Do., 24. Okt. 2019 um 10:00 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> How does everyone feel about the pace of discussion right now? I could
> send some more SRFIs before the end of the year but if people are
> overloaded or weary with the current pace, I can postpone them.

I would vote for a slower pace.

> The most important topic would be library lookup and packaging which I
> think is the biggest impediment to portable and convenient Scheme usage
> right now. A `#! /usr/bin/env scheme-script` that supports all Scheme
> implementations as well as the library/packaging standard would also be
> pertinent. As with keywords, a long and involved discussion is needed.

When long and involved discussions are needed, it may be a good idea
to have them before an actual first draft of a SRFI is being
published. Maybe comp.lang.scheme is a good place for these
discussions?