| From: Joe Marshall <[email protected]> | Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:55:36 -0700 | | On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Aubrey Jaffer<[email protected]> wrote: | > | > The number of SRFIs supported by the current release would be a good | > metric of an implementation. | | Yes, but it seems that the SRFIs themselves should be weighted in | some way. For instance, SRFI 6 (Basic String Ports) is nearly | universal, so an implementation that omitted SRFI 6 should be | penalized. But SRFI 21 is only supported by Gambit.
In your first message you pleaded for a better metric: > Subject: [r6rs-discuss] Temerity > Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:26:15 -0700 > ... > Metric A sucks. It cannot be independently verified, it's > relevancy cannot be determined, the bias is unknown. It has > exactly one virtue: it has a value. I'd like to come up with > something better, but until I do, here it is. I have proposed a metric which meets all your qualifications. Now it seems it isn't good enough; are the only acceptable metrics the ones which rank PLT-Scheme the highest? > If you have an objective metric, give me the values, (or better > yet, tell us how to derive them!!!) and I'll add a column for that. You promised to add a column when supplied with an objective metric; if you want to add an additional, weighted SRFI column, that's your right. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
