SRFI development in the age of git John Cowan (12 Jul 2020 23:15 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Bradley Lucier (12 Jul 2020 23:54 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Jul 2020 00:31 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Jul 2020 00:30 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Jul 2020 01:35 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (13 Jul 2020 06:45 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Linas Vepstas (13 Jul 2020 07:05 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (13 Jul 2020 07:09 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Linas Vepstas (13 Jul 2020 07:34 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git John Cowan (13 Jul 2020 18:10 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Linas Vepstas (13 Jul 2020 21:40 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git John Cowan (14 Jul 2020 00:38 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (14 Jul 2020 09:59 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Linas Vepstas (14 Jul 2020 22:54 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git John Cowan (14 Jul 2020 23:12 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Linas Vepstas (14 Jul 2020 23:57 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git John Cowan (15 Jul 2020 03:51 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Linas Vepstas (15 Jul 2020 08:34 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Jul 2020 07:40 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (13 Jul 2020 07:46 UTC)
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Jul 2020 15:59 UTC)

Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 14 Jul 2020 09:59 UTC

Am Di., 14. Juli 2020 um 02:38 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

> Just cherry-picking a few points...

Just cherry-cherry-picking. :)

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:40 PM Linas Vepstas <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Compare to, for example SQL -- it blows the doors off syntax-case in usability and power.
>
>
> Well, no; syntax-case allows arbitrary Scheme, so it is Turing-complete.  SQL is not, unless the implementation of CTEs allows arbitrary nesting.  SQL is also extremely rigid, deficient, and un-orthogonal compared to a true relational algebra implementation like Tutorial D.

In fact, already the pattern language of syntax-rules is Turing-complete.