I too would love to see a SRFI'd gui interface. I don't think we've
come anywhere close to a GUI toolkit that works even between *two*
scheme implementations.
It probably is a fairly difficult thing to standardize. GUI toolkits
are large and complex, and often have interfaces based specifically
on the external library that they're based on. Also, more than one
Scheme GUI system that I know of (Chez's SWL & PLT's MrED) are based
on some kind of OOP system. Good luck in standardizing that.
If it weren't for the class system, I'd say it would be a good place
to start to start with a subset of PLT's interface -- it's popular,
and generally has good interfaces -- rather than dreaming up
something new and untested. Then you'd have at least one compatible
implementation ;).
-Ryan
On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Jeff Read wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Erich Rast <erich at snafu.de> wrote:
>
>> My (perhaps wrong) impression of the SRFI process was that it is only
>> used for specifying standards implemented in Scheme, but that
>> proposals that almost solely depend on external libraries or
>> implementation extensions don't have a realistic chance of ever
>> becoming a final SRFI.
>>
>
> A SRFI is what the acronym expands to: a request for implementation, a
> formal specification of a feature you'd like Scheme implementors to
> include.
>
> SRFI 4 - Homogeneous numeric vector datatypes
> SRFI 18 - Multithreading support
> SRFI 19 - Time Data Types and Procedures
> SRFI 22 - Running Scheme Scripts on Unix
> SRFI 62 - S-expression comments
>
> These are examples of SRFIs which are not, or have components that are
> not, directly implementable in the R5RS dialect of Scheme. While the
> SRFI editors ask for a reference implementation in some version of
> Scheme to make implementors' lives easier, it is sometimes useful to
> ask for a feature to be implemented that depends on operating system
> services or external libraries, in which case the SRFI will have a
> reference implementation specific to some Scheme implementation, or in
> some cases, no reference implementation at all.
>
> With that in mind, a SRFI (or set of SRFIs) for a GUI toolkit is
> something I would consider to be enormously beneficial, at least to a
> subset of the Scheme community. But I still think such a thing is well
> outside the scope of the R6RS standardization process.
>
> --Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3795 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070604/9809cd14/attachment.bin
Received on Mon Jun 04 2007 - 11:12:46 UTC