Re: [Scheme-reports] Ballot item #113 "directory contents"

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG scripsit:

> I would be completely in favor of a careful Scheme binding specification for
> Posix. That would be wonderful. 

WG2 will have one, though so far I have not been able to muster the stamina
to construct such a thing.  The WG ruled out a complete Posix/SUS binding
(1118 functions), so it's a question of being selective, and I can't say
I have found a principled way to be selective about it.  The detailed-comparison
approach has so far not been fruitful for me either.

Recommendations and help are solicited.

-- 
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your    John Cowan
ear.  However, I would suggest you wash your    cowan@x
hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --gadicath

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