SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Sudarshan S Chawathe (07 May 2016 21:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Sudarshan S Chawathe (07 May 2016 21:38 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Per Bothner (07 May 2016 22:12 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments John Cowan (08 May 2016 02:17 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments John Cowan (08 May 2016 17:48 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (09 May 2016 07:03 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments John Cowan (09 May 2016 20:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Arthur A. Gleckler (09 May 2016 20:25 UTC)
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (12 May 2016 15:49 UTC)

Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Sudarshan S Chawathe 07 May 2016 21:38 UTC

Quick follow-up to on item in my own message of a few minutes ago...

>   * hash-table-pop!: The sample implementation expects an additional
>     (failure) argument.  Also, shouldn't there be a performance
>     guarantee here similar to those in earlier procedures?

On second thought, I can see a good reason to not have any guarantee, so
ignore that part of the comment.

Regards,

-chaw