[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (r6rs io ports)

From: Mike Gran
Subject: Re: (r6rs io ports)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:03:47 -0700 (PDT)


> From: Ludovic Courtès address@hidden

>> It would be easier.  When thinking about this, I was remembering or
>> mis-remembering that, back in the 2009, you'd said some along the
>> lines of ultimately standardizing on the R6RS ports codebase, and that
>> I was to consider the work on Guile legacy ports as interrim.


> Heh, good point.  I don’t like the current port API: it’s low-level,
> it’s C, it’s  undocumented, it forces users to access Guile internals,
> etc.  But it’s widely used, in Guile and outside.  If (rnrs io ports)
> were to be included in 2.0 (though I don’t think it should be a
> showstopper), it would seem safer to choose a solution that is simple
> and mostly orthogonal to the rest of Guile core.

> Perhaps the move to a new port API (probably based on that of R6RS) can
> be left for 2.2?  Hopefully, we’ll be much less relying on C by then,
> which should make things easier.

> What do you think?

I think that if you want to move to a new port codebase, there is no
need to add new features to the old one.

Personally, I have no pressing need for the R6RS ports in 2.0.  So I'd 
say it is better to push on with Doing The Right Thing, even if it 
(as we say in my business) "pushes the schedule to the right".

However, a counter argument might be that not having R6RS IO could be
a problem when marketing 2.0.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]