Re: [Chicken-hackers] Made a start with CHICKEN 5 proposal

[Peter Bex]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:10:49PM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
> I think these are lofty goals, but it is way too much work for a single
> release.
> Perhaps modularising the compiler and refactoring the core modules should
> be the goals for 5.0 release,

Those are the major breaking changes.  I agree we should focus on those.

> and points 1.3-1.8 would be done as 5.x releases leading up to 6.0.

We should at least give it some thought, so we can communicate which
things will be deprecated, otherwise people start porting code to the
new version using constructs we want to drop.

I think refactoring the ports system isn't much work, but it would
possibly be a breaking change as well.  That's why I wanted to include
it here.

> As for library names, I favor fully spelled out names instead of
> abbreviations, i.e. chicken.fixnum, chicken.flonum, etc.

Noted.  I don't care much which way it goes, so if nobody argues
strongly for the abbreviations, we'll use the fully spelled out forms.

> Also, shouldn't it be CHICKEN.fixnum now that we are using the FORTRAN
> convention? ;-)

hehe, clever :)

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net