|
s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 13:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 15:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 15:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 16:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 16:32 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 17:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 18:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
John Cowan
(01 Nov 2019 21:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 21:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
John Cowan
(01 Nov 2019 23:03 UTC)
|
|
&key vs :key in the lambda list
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 23:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list
John Cowan
(01 Nov 2019 23:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 23:27 UTC)
|
|
Syntax for hygienic vs non-hygienic keywords
Lassi Kortela
(01 Nov 2019 23:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: allow-other-keys
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 19:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(29 Oct 2019 16:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
Lassi Kortela
(29 Oct 2019 16:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: s7 suggestion
bil@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2019 17:10 UTC)
|
|
Including 177 in s7? Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 17:34 UTC)
|
> Currently, with-let is immutable -- I don't think that's > the perfect solution, but it's simpler than using > #_with-let all the time. A lot of that portion of > s7 is experimental. If we manage to arrive at a SRFI 177 design that Scheme implementors are generally satisfied with, would you be willing to ship the macros with s7? That way the SRFI implementation can evolve with s7's macro system. The current s7 implementation is a 27 lines, 5 lines of which is a `split-last` helper. So it's not huge but it'd be nice to find something even simpler.
