[Pika-dev] Re: Pika Plans? [was: My hours]

[Thomas Lord]

    > I take this mail as an occasion to ask about your short/medium-term
    > Pika plans; unfortunatly development has been stalled since June, when
    > you came up with Furth (and later XL). From your recent mails ([0],
    > [1]), I conclude that getting XL up and running is a prerequiste for
    > the Pika evaluator. As the xl category in your archive hasn't seen new
    > changesets in a while, I wonder if there is anything we (Pika devels)
    > can do to help getting XL up, assuming this will help Pika progress.

How embarassing.  Life has been fairly chaotic on this end for reasons
that are unimportant here.

Let's get back on track.

When the ideas of XL gelled in my head it pretty much blew me away.
It's going to change things a lot (I hope, knock on wood).

Nevertheless:

1) It'd be dumb to hold up Pika Scheme for XL.

2) Now that demands on my time are *starting* to rationalize a 
   little bit, I'd like a hobby project which is not connected
   to my GNU volunteer and professional obligations.  Good thing 
   Pika is still here.

So, please: I take back anything and everything I might have said
about XL and Pika and let's just pick up and crank it out as it
started: as "just" a clean, nifty, C implementation of Scheme.

The break in effort here needn't be a total loss.  One could regard it
as an opportunity.  I know that, personally, to get back on track I'll
have to spend some time inventorying what's there and in what state.
If others would like to join me in that effort, we could spend perhaps
1-2 weeks of discussion on the list reporting what our
(re-)explorations reveal.   Perhaps we could then follow that with 1-2
weeks of collective input on planning exactly what to do next,
hopefully leading to a concensus?

I'll be setting up some fresh and tidy archives for GNU Arch this
week.   I think that, "off hours" (this week), I'll perform an
analogous archive-cycling for Pika.

Yes, No, Maybe?

Thanks,
-t