From: Michael S. <sp...@in...> - 2004-06-12 13:25:32
|
>>>>> "Neil" =3D=3D Neil W Van Dyke <ne...@ne...> writes: Neil> I think there should also be no reason, in a language with Scheme's Neil> syntactic power, that I can't have a single source code file that Neil> captures decisions I have made about how to get it to work well wit= h Neil> different extensions of several Scheme implementations. All I'm saying is that SRFI 7 isn't a good way to do that. Besides that, I'm not sure why it needs to be a single source file. It's customary and good practice in other languages to encapsulate platform-specific stuff into clearly identifiable, separate entities. I believe that what you suggest, in the long run, leads to hard-to-maintain software. I've sure seen a lot of that in practice. Is this a political statement? I don't know. It does relate to design. I would like the appearance of SRFI 7 to denote "here comes a piece of code written in R5RS + SRFIs." That's something of technical usefulness. --=20 Cheers =3D8-} Mike Friede, V=F6lkerverst=E4ndigung und =FCberhaupt blabla |