At Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote: > I'm not familiar enough with the internals to know which way would be more > effort in the long run. There is the effort of the initial port, but then I > presume future updates to Chez Scheme will continue to be merged into the > Racket fork periodically. It *seems* like the more Racket Chez diverges > from Chez, the harder it will be to merge future updates to Chez, but I > could be way off base here. The other factor is the possibility of the Chez > folks becoming interested in helping out, and having a unified effort to do > the port.
For a back end, there's not too much difference between Chez Scheme and the Racket branch, so I expect the work will be easy to share. Up until a few weeks ago, there would have been no difference at all, but unboxing for floating-point arithmetic has changed the interface to back ends. I think it might be slightly easier to "backport" a back end that works with the Racket branch to one that works for the main Chez Scheme branch. Or maybe unboxed floating-point arithmetic will be of interest to the Chez Scheme developers, in which case the difference would go away. Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/20200623073734.143%40sirmail.smtp.cs.utah.edu.
