On Aug 25, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
We don't have portable libraries for OS processes either (apart from
spells and nausicaa, AFAIK). I think there is kind of a "bootstrap"
issue here: If I were to implement (parts of) the package manager, I'd
like to be able to use spells, which provides a portable filesystem
interface (beyond the meager one provided by R6RS), pathname
abstraction, OS process interface, and networking interface, all of
which would come in handy. However, I'm not sure if depending on
spells
is OK for the package manager -- opinions?
I think it's okay. As long as what's used is good and robust, why
not?
As we already have a pure-scheme ZIP implementation (in industria),
I've
started pulling up a simplistic pure-scheme HTTP client,
adding to industria:
https://code.launchpad.net/~rotty/scheme-libraries/industria
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~rotty/scheme-libraries/industria/
annotate/head%3A/rotty/net/http.sls
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~rotty/scheme-libraries/industria/
annotate/head%3A/programs/http-client.sps
The underlying TCP library is essentially a copy of spells' network
interface; so this does not add any non-SRFI dependencies.
I need a week or so to get back from my trip and get around fixing
the issues in Ikarus that you raised before. Thanks for taking the
time to write these libraries. I'll review and comment as soon as
I get a chance.
Aziz,,,
