Lassi Kortela <la...@lassi.io> writes: >> 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. > > The R6RS and R7RS library definition framework (which is broadly > compatible across both standards) offers a realistic way to write > portable libraries. > >> What else is there that actually is portable, despite not being in >> these? > > Most prominently, many of the packages at > https://akkuscm.org/packages/ (R6RS and R7RS) and > https://snow-fort.org/pkg (R7RS only). > > The groundwork has been laid. It's a matter of will whether the Scheme > community wants to push in the direction of more portability or less.
Would it be possible to start into that by creating prefixes for the different package repositories? (akkuscm ...) and (snow-fort ...) Maybe this could be automated for ones marked as portable. (how do I find out whether they are portable? Do I have to try?) (how do I find the license? In snow-fort I don’t see any license info, in akkuscm I see NOASSERTION for (slib minimize) but it should be BSD-3 or public domain) Though I see that for example (pfds ...) and (slib ...) are in both. And akkuscm seems to import snow-fort. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
