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

Re: R7RS-large and sockets



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"?