Am 18.11.2013 15:28, schrieb David A. Wheeler: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:19:21 +0100, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" > <joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net> wrote: > >> I wonder: the code already creates "fake port" object wrappers. Wouldn't >> this be the natural place to stick such per-port settings into??!! > That's not a bad idea. I was hoping for the "fake port"s to be > a temporary shim for certain cases,
I'm afraid I've seen so many cases, which could be solved by custom port refinements, that the only thing which is badly missing is a standard way to define custom ports. :-/ Just I'm short on any proposal to do just that. It's about as simple as coming up with "the" srfi for object oriented extensions to Scheme. A can of worms. > not something we end up using > everywhere, but I think you're right that it's plausible. > So if nobody objects. ... ?? /Jörg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation. Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
