five problems with this draft SRFI
William D Clinger
(26 Sep 2009 01:20 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Abdulaziz Ghuloum
(26 Sep 2009 05:58 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(26 Sep 2009 15:42 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(27 Sep 2009 02:43 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Shiro Kawai
(27 Sep 2009 03:16 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(29 Sep 2009 02:32 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
William D Clinger
(30 Sep 2009 01:49 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(30 Sep 2009 03:22 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(30 Sep 2009 03:51 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI Derick Eddington (30 Sep 2009 06:33 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
William D Clinger
(30 Sep 2009 13:11 UTC)
|
Re: five problems with this draft SRFI
Derick Eddington
(01 Oct 2009 09:10 UTC)
|
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 20:22 -0700, Derick Eddington wrote: > Library references, because of their version references, in the current > draft SRFI, can have a one-to-infinite mapping to file names. Yes, this > requires searching through all the theoretically possibly infinite file > names which might match. [...] Delete that "can". Library references, in the current draft SRFI, always do have a one-to-infinite mapping to file names, because an R6RS version reference, including an empty/non-existent one, always matches versions with more components than in the version reference, and the possibilities are infinite. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------