"Abdulaziz Ghuloum" wrote: >>> That said, let me build a Nausicaa version 0.1 that works >>> before the end of the year. Will you? >> >> Sure. We just don't want you to waste your time on >> something other Schemers aren't going to want to use. > > Yes, and I still would like to see a description > (document, draft, whatever. nothing fancy, no ACM > formatting) of what this is supposed to be and how it is > supposed to work. Is that possible Marco?
It goes like this: whenever I see a Scheme library that I like (and that has already been ported to R6RS or that I succeed in porting) I gather, repackage and normalise it in Nausicaa. This allows me (and everyone else) to have the 3 killer features I like in a library for whatever language I am using: 1. I like it; 2. I can install and uninstall it using the Slackware packaging tools; 3. there is documentation in Info format for it. While I am at it (being a GNU Make junkie) I add some feature to the makefile like support for binary distribution, support for other packaging tools, automatically generated uninstall scripts. I am open to accept contributed libraries that can be normalised to satisfy the build/install protocol established by "infrastructure/Makefile.in" in the Nausicaa tarball (unpublished right now, it will be in the next pre-release). Inclusion example: when I was using Guile, I loved to code using GOOPS (its object system); so I gathered R6RS-CLOS because I hope it will give me the same good feelings. I repackaged it, and I am writing documentation for it (because, you know, it is fully undocumented). Exclusion example: I would have liked to gather Foof-Loop, but porting it requires too much learning and testing to have a feature that, basically, is already available in Scheme and the ec SRFI. So I discarded it. Enough? -- Marco Maggi
