At Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote: > I'm not familiar enough with the internals to know which way would be more > effort in the long run. There is the effort of the initial port, but then I > presume future updates to Chez Scheme will continue to be merged into the > Racket fork periodically. It *seems* like the more Racket Chez diverges > from Chez, the harder it will be to merge future updates to Chez, but I > could be way off base here. The other factor is the possibility of the Chez > folks becoming interested in helping out, and having a unified effort to do > the port.
For a back end, there's not too much difference between Chez Scheme and the Racket branch, so I expect the work will be easy to share. Up until a few weeks ago, there would have been no difference at all, but unboxing for floating-point arithmetic has changed the interface to back ends. I think it might be slightly easier to "backport" a back end that works with the Racket branch to one that works for the main Chez Scheme branch. Or maybe unboxed floating-point arithmetic will be of interest to the Chez Scheme developers, in which case the difference would go away. Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/20200623073734.143%40sirmail.smtp.cs.utah.edu.
