-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/03/2012 03:38 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
> I think the standard feature identifiers given in appendix B are too low-level and ill-conceived.  They are removing from the high-level nature of Scheme.  Specifically I object to:

Perhaps a good "acid test" should be that a feature identifier should
only be standardised if the semantics of other parts of the standard
depend upon it in some way.

Eg, exposing some feature identifiers for pathname scheme (Windows-like
with an optional leading drive then \s, or POSIX-like with /s, are the
only widespread choices these days) might be useful, as we have
pathnames. But stuff about machine word formats won't be useful until
you get into C FFIs.

ABS

- --
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8DJ4QACgkQRgz/WHNxCGpLEACgj8Wdz+u9AC6oATG/13yyDAZi
eQwAn3kcZn780cUUy/MqM7UA1vUMK8K+
=J86d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports