|
proposing a simpler mechanism
R. Kent Dybvig
(13 Nov 2009 03:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 04:23 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Taylor R Campbell
(13 Nov 2009 04:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
R. Kent Dybvig
(13 Nov 2009 16:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Per Bothner
(13 Nov 2009 16:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 04:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Alex Queiroz
(13 Nov 2009 13:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Marc Feeley
(13 Nov 2009 14:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 18:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 18:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism Alex Queiroz (13 Nov 2009 19:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 19:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
David Van Horn
(13 Nov 2009 19:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 19:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
David Van Horn
(13 Nov 2009 19:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Nov 2009 20:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
David Van Horn
(12 Jan 2010 18:51 UTC)
|
Hallo,
On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> wrote:
> So what? Are we now making srfi's have an inelegant interface because
> some implementations implement standard scheme poorly?
>
Implementing integer sets is a bit difficult with "elegant" Scheme.
--
-alex
@asandroq
http://www.ventonegro.org/