Re: proposing a simpler mechanism | Simplelists

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)

Re: proposing a simpler mechanism Alex Queiroz 13 Nov 2009 19:01 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/