<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28"> <TITLE>RE: [plt-scheme] 3m</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  Great! Personally I hope 3m to be the default as soon as possible. I have use 3m since v20x. And I do write bindings to C libraries. I don't think that C bindings is a problem for 3m. But I do feel that some program can only work with CGC but not 3m (at about v299.x). Recently I shift back to CGC so I can't tell how good 3m works now. Chongkai -----Original Message----- From: plt-scheme-bounces@list.cs.brown.edu on behalf of Matthew Flatt Sent: Tue 6/27/2006 9:58 AM To: plt-scheme@list.cs.brown.edu Subject: [plt-scheme] 3m Why 3m Might Become the Default Before Long ------------------------------------------- Whether we actually shift depends on a couple of factors. First, we have to make sure that 3m is stable and well-tuned; although I use 3m most of the time, my tasks form a small subset of what the people on this list do. We are gradually widening the circle of people who use 3m, and you are certainly welcome to become part of that group. Second, we need to make sure that most people who deal with low-level code are ready for the switch --- especially people on this list who write bindings to C libraries. I am interested in hearing from anyone who works with C code about whether the switch to 3m is feasible. Of course, we will never discontinue the CGC build, so those who embed MzScheme or create extensions for personal use can always continue using the CGC variant. _________________________________________________   For list-related administrative tasks:   <A HREF="http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme">http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme</A> </BODY> </HTML>