|
Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 07:45 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 08:06 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 12:49 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Arthur A. Gleckler
(27 Jul 2020 17:16 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 19:22 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Arthur A. Gleckler
(27 Jul 2020 19:33 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 19:45 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 20:03 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections hga@xxxxxx (27 Jul 2020 20:17 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 20:31 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 19:48 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
Lassi Kortela
(27 Jul 2020 20:23 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: Registry of known foreign error collections
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Jul 2020 22:58 UTC)
|
||
schemeregistry is right in the "Subject:" line! While it's indeed dry and bureaucratic, it's very, if not *perfectly* descriptive for registering the existence, and basic characteristics any sort of Scheme artifact below the levels that are already being handled like Scheme standards and SRFIs. - Harold ----- Original message ----- From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> Date: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:03 PM [good stuff] Another suggestion: schemeregistry - but does that sound too dry and bureaucratic? Maybe it does, and is no clearer than schemeid(s).
