|
relationship to SRFI-25
Per Bothner
(30 Jul 2015 05:30 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25 John Cowan (30 Jul 2015 20:20 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(31 Jul 2015 21:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(26 Sep 2015 18:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Per Bothner
(27 Sep 2015 05:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(28 Sep 2015 21:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Per Bothner
(28 Sep 2015 21:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(28 Sep 2015 21:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Jamison Hope
(28 Sep 2015 22:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(28 Sep 2015 22:38 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Jamison Hope
(28 Sep 2015 23:20 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(29 Sep 2015 06:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Jamison Hope
(29 Sep 2015 16:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: relationship to SRFI-25
Bradley Lucier
(30 Sep 2015 03:42 UTC)
|
Per Bothner scripsit: > Why can't SRFI-122 be a compatible superset of SRFI-25? The obvious point is that there is nothing in SRFI-25 corresponding to a storage class. You could use clever argument defaulting. > Why would anyone want to write: > ((array-getter a) i j) > instead of: > (array-ref a i j) Got me. However, there will have to be an array utility library on top of this SRFI if it is aimed at scientific programmers. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org In my last lifetime, I believed in reincarnation; in this lifetime, I don't. --Thiagi
