SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Sudarshan S Chawathe
(07 May 2016 21:13 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Sudarshan S Chawathe (07 May 2016 21:38 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Per Bothner
(07 May 2016 22:12 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
John Cowan
(08 May 2016 02:17 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
John Cowan
(08 May 2016 17:48 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(09 May 2016 07:03 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
John Cowan
(09 May 2016 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
Arthur A. Gleckler
(09 May 2016 20:25 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 May 2016 15:49 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Sudarshan S Chawathe 07 May 2016 21:38 UTC
Quick follow-up to on item in my own message of a few minutes ago... > * hash-table-pop!: The sample implementation expects an additional > (failure) argument. Also, shouldn't there be a performance > guarantee here similar to those in earlier procedures? On second thought, I can see a good reason to not have any guarantee, so ignore that part of the comment. Regards, -chaw