[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Ballot item #113 "directory contents"
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 cowan@x
hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list