Gordon Weakliem wrote:
> >If someone wants to document some PLT-specific
> >functionality, even if it has a SRFI counterpart, we perhaps
> >need to be able to mark the topic as "intentionally PLT-specific".
> Fair enough. From my perspective, I won't be able to contribute
> much if we have a strong cross platform requirement, because PLT
> is the only Scheme I've used enough to know anything about.
I don't think we'd ever want to expect that an individual contributor
provide info for more than one implementation. Making an entry
multi-implementation friendly would be the job of users of the respective
implementations. The only exception is the general requirement that SRFIs
be preferred where possible.
What I was thinking of was if someone wants to describe PLT's define-struct,
rather than SRFI-9, or perhaps PLT's OO system, or module system, etc., we
might want to flag such topics to prevent any unwanted attempts to make
those entries more portable. Topics like that would be an example of a case
where other implementations would require an entirely different version of
the topic, probably in their own "web" (assuming we get to that point under
TWiki as opposed to Moshi).
> Actually, I think in Taylor's case, his point was fair enough.
> It's a chapter on structures, so the intro should contain
> something on SRFI-9. I just wish that Taylor would have written
> up something on SRFI-9, instead of complaining and (apparently) leaving.
Taylor's not a PLT fan, and if he left, it's probably because of that,
and/or he wants to see how we respond to the objections raised on #scheme.