|
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)
|
> 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? Yes. > 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. It looked fine to me -- I'll stare at it some more.
