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"?