| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:07:01PM -0600, in |
| 2 |
<87ptd61qcq.fsf@×××××××××.cx>, Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@g.o> |
| 3 |
wrote: |
| 4 |
> Brian Friday <bfriday@××××××××.edu> writes: |
| 5 |
> > applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good |
| 6 |
> > reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it |
| 7 |
> > is rather tedious. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Yes, but dev-lisp is already chockers with common lisp stuff, so that |
| 10 |
> won't do. |
| 11 |
If the objective is to choose a name for the category which accurately |
| 12 |
describes its intended contents, I suggest "dev-lispscheme. One |
| 13 |
alternative, just off the top of my head, would be to use "dev-scheme" |
| 14 |
and drop a README in the Portage tree root directory which describes |
| 15 |
what each category is supposed to contain and points to other detailed |
| 16 |
documentation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? |
| 20 |
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. |
| 21 |
--Ghost in the Shell |
Archives