Re: [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?

To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?
From: Shiro Kawai <shiro.kawai@x>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 23:25:41 -1000
Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYNNZ-eO0gkky=DnO6m0nL6wLXL4cwyy06Y5tujKwid5eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120102095211.GA27647@socrates.lan> <CAMMPzYNNZ-eO0gkky=DnO6m0nL6wLXL4cwyy06Y5tujKwid5eg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:
> Given these are minor cases I think it's a more
> appropriate feature for the large language.

Or another srfi.  Something similar to Common Lisp's
lisp-implementation-type and
lisp-implementation-version can be a small srfi that most
implementations can easily provide.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

References:
- [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?
  - From: Jeronimo Pellegrini <j_p@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?
  - From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?
Next by thread: [Scheme-reports] Can a library keep state?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread