Re: [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?

[Stefan Edwards <saedwards.ecc@x>]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> 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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports