-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 4-Mar-07, at 9:05 AM, Marc Feeley wrote:
> I am playing with the idea of adding define-syntax* to
> the Snow specification. I have a prototype of this in my working
> copy of the generic Snow. A quick experiment indicates that all of
> the currently supported Scheme systems except Gambit, Guile and SCM
> support define-syntax. Out of the major Scheme systems not yet
> supported by Snow, I expect Kawa, Larceny, MIT-Scheme and SISC to
> also support define-syntax, but not RScheme and Stalin. Finally, I
> expect most of the lesser Schemes will not support define-syntax at
> all (e.g. EdScheme, Elk, JScheme, LispMe, SIOD, TinyScheme, to name a
> few).
>
> So it boils down to a portability issue. If Snow adds support for
> define-syntax, then packages that use it will not be portable to many
> Scheme systems. Should we care?
I think we should add define-syntax* to the Snow spec. Any one opposed?
Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFF8V68//V9Zc2T/v4RAkjbAJ9HIqI4L/Yh07Dqx4I1cpGlx/VvYwCbBRG9
ArrrkvvchO+nySlDbL8apqA=
=+4Mi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----