[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: R7RS-large and sockets

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 106 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 106 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Sven Hartrumpf scripsit:

> Could SRFI-106 be polished to be a valuable input to
> the standardization process for R7RS-large?

It certainly could be.

> Or will R7RS-large start from a different draft?
> Indicated here: http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/StandardDocket ("TCP")
> Or will R7RS-large say nothing about sockets?
> Indicated here: http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/ReassignedDocket

The original WG2 vote on various packages can be found at
<http://tinyurl.com/wg2-ballot>.  In particular, there were 5 votes
to do a simple TCP package in WG2 and only 1 vote to postpone it to a
future WG, and likewise for a simple UDP package.  My proposals can
be found at <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/NetworkPortsCowan> and
<http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DatagramChannelsCowan> respectively.

For full socket support, however, there were 6 votes to postpone and
only 2 votes for a WG2 effort.  I suppose that the members thought it
would be an excessive amount of work.  Still, if someone else is doing
that work, I'd be open to a request to reconsider it.

John Cowan      cowan@xxxxxxxx        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?