On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 19:03 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Or you can support the notion of feature groups and then use a
> Scheme that doesn't have the %bignums feature, either because it
> was never built or because it has been configured away.
I actually don't like this as a general solution. It results
in writing code that has a different meaning on another
implementation.
I would far rather be importing + - / * etc from a library of
operators having the semantics I want, and writing code using
them. Then, whether or not a given scheme supports bignums,
fixnums, flonums, etc, the functions imported from that library
name would have the same semantics. That is, code level
configuration, not implementation level configuration.
A scheme that supported everything, of course, would have all
libraries available. A scheme that didn't have the %bignum
feature, as you're calling it, would lack the corresponding
libraries.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
