Thomas Bushnell, BSG scripsit: > I would be completely in favor of a careful Scheme binding specification for > Posix. That would be wonderful.
WG2 will have one, though so far I have not been able to muster the stamina to construct such a thing. The WG ruled out a complete Posix/SUS binding (1118 functions), so it's a question of being selective, and I can't say I have found a principled way to be selective about it. The detailed-comparison approach has so far not been fruitful for me either. Recommendations and help are solicited. -- Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan ear. However, I would suggest you wash your [email protected] hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --gadicath _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
