This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: Implementation Language
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Implementation Language
- From: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:00:10 +1000 (EST)
- cc: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
I would like to keep Scheme, especially if some of the code is
reorganized. The halfhearted O-O structures (not cos.scm, but its
uses) particularly bug me.
Likewise. R5RS has no object system, right? Is GOOPS a risky proposition?
We don't need to be dependent on any particular Scheme implementation.
We could assume R5RS, and add only essential minimal
interpreter-specifics.
I'm all for this.
> However, I think the current Guile implementation has a _long_ way to go
> in this regard, and I'm not convinced it will ever get there.
It's a good operational starting point.
Is it likely that we can have any influence over the Guile crowd to get the
things from Guile that we want? What's wrong exactly with the Guile
implementation--if considered as simply an implementation of R5RS?
Ben