SRFI 130: 120 days
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Apr 2016 19:25 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days John Cowan (01 Apr 2016 20:40 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days
Alex Shinn
(02 Apr 2016 14:32 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days
John Cowan
(02 Apr 2016 16:29 UTC)
|
index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Per Bothner
(03 Apr 2016 19:16 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
John Cowan
(03 Apr 2016 19:40 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Alex Shinn
(04 Apr 2016 01:18 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Per Bothner
(04 Apr 2016 02:56 UTC)
|
Re: index/cursor merging [was: 120 days]
Alex Shinn
(04 Apr 2016 05:39 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 130: 120 days John Cowan 01 Apr 2016 20:39 UTC
Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit: > John, how's the implementation coming? Do you think we'll > be ready for last call soon? I haven't started, but there is little to do. Basically I need to take Olin's implementation, remove any unneeded procedures, add the trivial string-cursor-* and string->vector/cursors procedures, and write string-split. That will produce an implementation in which cursors and indexes are the same, which satisfies the requirements of the SRFI. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org You annoy me, Rattray! You disgust me! You irritate me unspeakably! Thank Heaven, I am a man of equable temper, or I should scarcely be able to contain myself before your mocking visage. --Stalky imitating Macrea