Re: [Schematics-development] Cookbook release

[Gordon W. <gwe...@od...>]

>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. 
  
>We may also need a more explicit policy about allowing "gratuitous" 
>PLT-specificness to exist, if we want to allow that, since otherwise 
>reactions like Taylor's may be common: "why is xxx PLT-specific, you can do 
>it with a SRFI like this".    
  
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. 
-- 
Gordon Weakliem 
http://www.eighty-twenty.net