Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Personally, I would like Guile "core" to be much more modular than >>> what it is now. > > Me too. And I think this should mean separate libraries. > >> I don't really disagree. In particular, I think this is something we >> should definitely consider as we examine R6RS. > > Ah yes, R6RS. I've been following r6rs-discuss just enough to feel > worried about this! (My impression is that there's quite a lot of > change from R5RS, not just additions.)
Although I still haven't looked at R6RS carefully yet, I've been wondering if this might be an opportunity to think about a Guile 2.0 release, one where we give ourselves more latitude to make disruptive changes, perhaps including R6RS support, the addition of any other major features, and any appropriate reorganizations (ice-9?). -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
