Re: [9fans] SXM and Plan 9

[Andrew Pochinsky <avp@MIT.EDU>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

SXM is almost a complete R5RS implementation (it's major omission is 
lack of bignums and rational numbers). I ported it to plan9. In my 
typical code it runs about two times slower than petite, but your 
milage may vary.

--andrew


 > From: Vester Thacker <vthacker@0xfe.org>
 > Date: June 26, 2004 6:38:27 AM CDT
 >Subject: [9fans] SXM and Plan 9
 >
 >
 >Has anyone used SMX with Plan 9? I'm interested to hear whether it
 >is a good implementation of Scheme under Plan 9. Or should I consider
 >another version? Any schemers out there? Thanks in advance.
 >
 >--Vester Thacker
 >

[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 282 bytes --]

from postmaster@ethel:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
	Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

[-- Attachment #2.2: file.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 833 bytes --]

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>SXM is almost a complete
R5RS implementation (it's major omission is lack of bignums and
rational numbers). I ported it to plan9. In my typical code it runs
about two times slower than petite, but your milage may vary.


--andrew



> From: </color></bold>Vester Thacker <<vthacker@0xfe.org>

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>> Date: </color></bold>June
26, 2004 6:38:27 AM CDT

<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>>Subject: </color>[9fans]
SXM and Plan 9

<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>></color></bold>

>

>Has anyone used SMX with Plan 9? I'm interested to hear whether it

>is a good implementation of Scheme under Plan 9. Or should I consider

>another version? Any schemers out there? Thanks in advance.

>

>--Vester Thacker

>