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-WiÃkirchen 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?