|
remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names
Derick Eddington
(06 Mar 2010 01:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names
R. Kent Dybvig
(07 Mar 2010 06:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names
Derick Eddington
(08 Mar 2010 02:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names Derick Eddington (08 Mar 2010 02:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names
R. Kent Dybvig
(08 Mar 2010 18:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names
Derick Eddington
(09 Mar 2010 08:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issue: Windows-disallowed file names
R. Kent Dybvig
(14 Mar 2010 04:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issues
Derick Eddington
(14 Mar 2010 19:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issues
R. Kent Dybvig
(15 Mar 2010 14:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issues
Derick Eddington
(15 Mar 2010 23:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issues
R. Kent Dybvig
(22 Mar 2010 21:28 UTC)
|
|
Re: remaining issues
Derick Eddington
(27 Mar 2010 02:30 UTC)
|
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 18:04 -0800, Derick Eddington wrote: > I think it's clearly better to not restrict library names *and* to have > portability with Windows (because I think it'll help Scheme adoption), > via an encoding design which will die when Windows does and which won't > be used much. To clarify, what I mean is it won't be seen or dealt with much by clients of libraries. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
