On 14 July 2018 at 12:53, Matt Wette <matt.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I posed a question on #guile IRC last weekend asking for use cases for > making Guile > multi-lingual. The use case that came up was the desire to use Guile as an > extension > that supports multiple languages for users. To that end, I wonder how > important it is > to make these extension languages meet published language conventions or > standards. > I believe to do so is too difficult: the Guile community does not have the > volunteer > workforce people to achieve this. I think it would be more practical to > look for > reasonable approximations. If this is the direction to go, then should > Guile name > these extension languages according to what they attempt to mimic (e.g., > javascript), > or rather rename to something that has a similar sounding name (e.g., > guavascript), or, > as another option, rename with an extension monicker (e.g., javascriptx)? >
+1 on distinguishing non-conformant implementations, makes life easier when Guile later supports (whether inbuilt or not) a conforming implementation of that language. I guess javascript is the exception to that rule, because Guile's javascript is probably the closest thing to a conforming ES4 implementation out there. I like the idea of a consistent suffix or prefix for nonconformant implementations, even in the guildhall. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without prior contractual agreement.
