-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/03/2012 03:38 PM, Marc Feeley wrote: > I think the standard feature identifiers given in appendix B are too > low-level and ill-conceived. They are removing from the high-level nature of > Scheme. Specifically I object to:
Perhaps a good "acid test" should be that a feature identifier should only be standardised if the semantics of other parts of the standard depend upon it in some way. Eg, exposing some feature identifiers for pathname scheme (Windows-like with an optional leading drive then \s, or POSIX-like with /s, are the only widespread choices these days) might be useful, as we have pathnames. But stuff about machine word formats won't be useful until you get into C FFIs. ABS - -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8DJ4QACgkQRgz/WHNxCGpLEACgj8Wdz+u9AC6oATG/13yyDAZi eQwAn3kcZn780cUUy/MqM7UA1vUMK8K+ =J86d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
