External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(10 Sep 2015 15:21 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(10 Sep 2015 15:22 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Sep 2015 15:24 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(10 Sep 2015 20:10 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Sep 2015 20:44 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(11 Sep 2015 07:36 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
John Cowan
(11 Sep 2015 13:04 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(11 Sep 2015 13:25 UTC)
|
Re: External representation Per Bothner (11 Sep 2015 14:05 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(11 Sep 2015 14:21 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
Kevin Wortman
(11 Sep 2015 19:10 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(11 Sep 2015 21:48 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
Shiro Kawai
(12 Sep 2015 02:04 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
John Cowan
(10 Sep 2015 16:30 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(10 Sep 2015 18:12 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
John Cowan
(10 Sep 2015 19:02 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
Per Bothner
(10 Sep 2015 21:25 UTC)
|
Re: External representation
John Cowan
(10 Sep 2015 21:52 UTC)
|
On 09/11/2015 03:04 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > >> Still, I guess I'll make it optional, along with weak/ephemeral >> hashtables, so there's still some utility of the SRFI for those who >> don't like all of it. > > I have no problem with making it optional. But I suggest that in that > case you adopt Racket's lexical syntax rather than a minor change from > it, so there will at least be some implementation. I agree. A bonus is if hashtables take part in quasi-quotation, so you could use the "same" syntax for computed values: `#hash((,n1 . ,v1) (,n2 . ,v2)) In the above n1 v1 n2 v2 are computed expressions. Regardless, the result should (probably) be an immutable hash-table. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/