On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stefan Edwards scripsit: > > > >> What about loading alternative implementation of a feature, such as > >> falling back onto the reference implementation of a SRFI if the Scheme > >> you're using doesn't provide one? I actually think this would ease > >> writing libraries likes SLIB or Nausicaa that support multiple Scheme > >> implementations and have to Spackle the gaps in features between them. > > > > If possible that should be done using cond-expand in the module > > language. > > Exactly. That's the primary (and currently only) use of features. > We're talking about potential secondary uses. > Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought SRFI-0/7 only worked on features specified by SRFIs, and not things such as POSIX interaction, non-SRFI-based threading, implementation specific module styles, &c. Even just having a bog-standard methods for accessing the implementation name would help, I think. > -- > Alex > -- ==== Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? A. No.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
