| 1 |
I know this is policy, but in the case where there are several interpreters |
| 2 |
available (such is the case of Scheme), might it be more reasonable to put a |
| 3 |
popular interpreter in dev-lang, and the rest into dev-scheme? This should |
| 4 |
keep clutter in dev-lang to a minimum, and still allow users to easily browse |
| 5 |
by their preferred language. What is the thought here? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
-Blake |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis? |
| 11 |
> > The builds that I feel should be moved to dev-scheme are: dev-lisp/plt, |
| 12 |
> > dev-lisp/kawa, dev-lisp/mzscheme, dev-lisp/bigloo, dev-lisp/gauche, |
| 13 |
> > dev-lisp/drscheme, dev-lisp/chicken, dev-lisp/mit-scheme and dev-util/guile. |
| 14 |
> > There may be others that I have missed, (Matt, anything?). Guile has the most |
| 15 |
> > dependencies, with around 34 of them. There may be some debate as to whether |
| 16 |
> > or not guile should be moved, but as guile is a Scheme interpreter I think |
| 17 |
> > it's appropriate. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> We seem to have difficulties being consistent in this area, but actual |
| 20 |
> language compilers / interpreters really belong in dev-lang (for |
| 21 |
> example, python is in dev-lang, while python extensions and libraries |
| 22 |
> are located in dev-python). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Best, |
| 25 |
> g2boojum |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Blake Matheny |
| 33 |
jake@g.o Computer Science is merely the post-Turing |
| 34 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/ decline in formal systems theory. |
| 35 |
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key |
Archives