On 8 Sep 2009, at 4:26 pm, Andre van Tonder wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: > >> Some people say "things should be in the standard because they want >> to >> be able to use them" (sockets etc). I agree, we need a standard way >> to >> do sockets, but it needn't be in "core Scheme". It should be >> standardised in an SRFI, or maybe in "large Scheme". > > I am of the opinion that we don't need large Scheme at all. SRFIs > should be sufficient, if the process is properly conducted. Large > Scheme seems too heavyweight a process, and updates to it are > likely to be too intermittent, to fulfill the growing and changing > needs for useful libraries.
Indeed; I see Large Scheme as more of a "profile" of Core Scheme + [these SRFIs] > > Andre > ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
