Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discussion for proposal 2016-003 (Conformance levels) #20

Closed
ratmice opened this issue Sep 15, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Discussion for proposal 2016-003 (Conformance levels) #20

ratmice opened this issue Sep 15, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@ratmice
Copy link

ratmice commented Sep 15, 2016

Discussion of proposal 2016-003 (Conformance levels)

[Edit: This proposal only delves into the subset of the basis which is currently Required, and the portability to non-traditional kernels.]

@JohnReppy
Copy link
Contributor

Unclear to me what the proposal is proposing. Perhaps it should be rewritten to state that a specific list of modules is optional in a minimal implementation of the Basis Library.

@ratmice
Copy link
Author

ratmice commented May 3, 2017

Thanks John, I have tried to clarify it (removing a large section, which i think distracted from the main point, summarizing that in a paragraph in the synopsis), and moving more to as you suggest.

@ratmice
Copy link
Author

ratmice commented Mar 16, 2018

FWIW, I'm going to just close this, It seems what i'm after is already attainable (and less ad-hoc) from Matthias Blume's "Portable Library descriptions for Standard ML", that more compilers don't implement this interface is probably not a good reason for including such a library description of the basis library as a meta-data structure within the basis library itself. Either way that proposal is probably a better starting point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants