Lassi Kortela <la...@lassi.io> writes: >> But on the topic of (guile ...) as name: I’m not sure whether (guile >> ...) is better. Because what then is (language ...)? What are (oop ...) >> (sxml ...) and (web ...)? >> Should all of these move into (guile ...)? > > IMHO they should move under (guile ...). Other Scheme implementations > (e.g. Gauche) have the same problem: implementation-specific libraries > are in the top-level namespace. This make it hard to figure out which > libraries are portable, standardized, or third-party, and which ship > with a particular Scheme implementation. I often write portable code, > and in that context this is a clear issue.
Is anything except for (srfi ...) and (rnrs ...) expected to be portable? I thought till now that if I want my code portable, an easy way would be to restrict my imports to these. What else is there that actually is portable, despite not being in these? Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
