Practicality of the srfi
Shiro Kawai
(29 Jun 2016 21:52 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Jun 2016 14:45 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi
Shiro Kawai
(30 Jun 2016 21:14 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(12 Jul 2016 12:07 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi
Shiro Kawai
(12 Jul 2016 21:00 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi
John Cowan
(13 Jul 2016 01:07 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi
shiro.kawai@xxxxxx
(13 Jul 2016 01:38 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi John Cowan (14 Jul 2016 01:27 UTC)
|
Re: Practicality of the srfi John Cowan 14 Jul 2016 01:27 UTC
xxxxxx@gmail.com scripsit: > But why does it want to avoid r7rs record? Providing procedural record > on srfi 137 is just about the same effort as providing one using r7rs > record (l mean just use r7rs record as infrastructure, not making the > procedural record type be r7rs record type). Well, that is precisely what the portable implementation of SRFI 137 does: it assumes SRFI-9 (or R7RS-small). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Values of beeta will give rise to dom! (5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried to rename '.' or '..' entries; see http://9p.io/who/dmr/odd.html)