Alex Shinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for your comments. Which part do you think should be a SRFI?
The module system. (As it happens, looking around today I discovered
Andre van Tonder's module system spec, which looks (to my superficial
eyes) quite similar to yours, and which is form
[Please send followups to the common-scheme mailing list.]
Note: version 0.3.1 is available with several bugfixes.
On 9/10/05, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Shinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > http://synthcode.com/scheme/common-scheme/
>
> This looks like a very nice idea,
Alex Shinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now not only can you write portable code, you can share it easily with
> your friends!
>
> http://synthcode.com/scheme/common-scheme/
This looks like a very nice idea, but I wonder why you don't put it
through the SRFI process.
To my mind, doing this as
Now not only can you write portable code, you can share it easily with
your friends!
http://synthcode.com/scheme/common-scheme/
Version 0.3 adds the optional "common-scheme" command which acts as a
package management system and multi-platform build tool all in one.
Search and install from a dec
