Alex Shinn writes: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > > At the page break 73-74, I wonder how appropriate it is to promote > > the old Indiana repository. Shouldn't it be labelled historical > > and not-up-to-date-in-any-way if it's mentioned at all? I'm sure > > schemers.org links to it, and schemers.org seems to be the good > > starting point now. > > We'll revisit this. I actually wanted to expand that section > further but there aren't a lot of non-partisan resources out there. > I think the freenode #scheme IRC channel may be worth mentioning.
The problem is that the Indiana repo is fourteen years out of date: not maintained since 1998. It should not be advertised as if it was up to date. It doesn't know anything about r6rs, for example. It provides a 1998 version of SCM as its latest addition when there has been a relase in 2010. The repo itself makes its status perfectly clear. It also points to schemers.org as an alternative. The draft r7rs text (inherited from r5rs, I think) needs an update. Perhaps suggest schemers.org as a reasonably _current_ starting point (it also looks attractive and has a sense of humour) and in the end mention the Indiana report for its _historical_ value. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
