Brian Friday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good > reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it > is rather tedious. Yes, but dev-lisp is already chockers with common lisp stuff, so that won't do. dev-lang was suggested. I think dev-lang was okay in the early days, however I agree with Blake, the sheer number of scheme compilers warrants a category of its own, if only to make life easier for the maintainer. Besides, there's already precedent with dev-java containing several compiler implementations. Matt -- Matthew Kennedy Gentoo Linux Developer
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
