| 1 |
Brian Friday <bfriday@××××××××.edu> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 12 |
dev-lang was suggested. I think dev-lang was okay in the early days, |
| 13 |
however I agree with Blake, the sheer number of scheme compilers |
| 14 |
warrants a category of its own, if only to make life easier for the |
| 15 |
maintainer. Besides, there's already precedent with dev-java |
| 16 |
containing several compiler implementations. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Matt |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Matthew Kennedy |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives