[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Scheme-reports Digest, Vol 10, Issue 1
- To: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Scheme-reports Digest, Vol 10, Issue 1
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:05:35 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports@x, "Larry D. Lee jr." <llee@x>
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTimCa9A4fukWGzNXmKdYY2DBHt+1GKFwyvzwuBZemail@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <AANLkTimteqJugzqpEQ9rEgWaf8b7M1b=WkCR0YJFO2Gf@mail.gmail.com> <1288375848.3522.13.camel@motoko> <AANLkTimCa9A4fukWGzNXmKdYY2DBHt+1GKFwyvzwuBZemail@example.com>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@x> wrote:
> I would be happy if Scheme-2 said "this is how we map to Posix.1
> facilities", and very unhappy if they started deciding what a good
> networking interface looks like.
As chair of WG2, that is exactly what I expect to see happen. The WG
has rejected providing a complete interface to Posix (which after all
has almost 1200 functions, macros, and variables declared in over 80
header files), so I'm looking at various other Schemes to see which
parts of Posix they provide. Similarly, WG2 will not have a complete
socket interface, but will be providing support for TCP and UDP
clients and servers (you can see my UDP proposal at
http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DatagramChannelsCowan; it is slightly
more convenient than raw Posix but not fundamentally different).
> My primary concern is that Scheme-1 shouldn't have any of this. I'm happy to
> see files removed from Scheme-1, but the backwards-compatibility
> expectations for Scheme-1 might make that implausible, and I'm content to
> see them stay.
Placing file operations in an optional WG1 module means that WG1
implementations need not provide them, but conforms to the charter
requirement that all IEEE features be available in the WG1 language.
Scheme-reports mailing list