PC-Scheme for DOS | Simplelists

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 10:58 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (15 Aug 2020 11:16 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 11:50 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 12:09 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 12:43 UTC)

Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 13:10 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values John Cowan (15 Aug 2020 15:19 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 15:34 UTC)

A better name for 'set, a need for a reflection API for SRFI 198?? hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 19:00 UTC)

Re: A better name for 'set, a need for a reflection API for SRFI 198?? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 06:31 UTC)

Re: A better name for 'set, a need for a reflection API for SRFI 198?? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 12:30 UTC)

Re: A better name for 'set, a need for a reflection API for SRFI 198?? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:41 UTC)

Re: A better name for 'set, a need for a reflection API for SRFI 198?? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 13:18 UTC)

SRFI 35 (Conditions), SRFI 198, and do we have a compatible vision Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:36 UTC)

Re: SRFI 35 (Conditions), SRFI 198, and do we have a compatible vision hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 13:50 UTC)

Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 14:06 UTC)

Re: Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 14:23 UTC)

Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 14:44 UTC)

Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 15:19 UTC)

Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 15:31 UTC)

Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 17:12 UTC)

Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 17:19 UTC)

Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 17:31 UTC)

On the messiness of alists for lists as values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 17:25 UTC)

Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 17:39 UTC)

Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 17:52 UTC)

Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 18:39 UTC)

Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 19:04 UTC)

Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values John Cowan (16 Aug 2020 22:26 UTC)

PC-Scheme for DOS Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 10:07 UTC)

Re: Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 14:24 UTC)

Re: Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 02:51 UTC)

Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 10:52 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 14:01 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 15:06 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 15:30 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 15:38 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 15:51 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 16:17 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 16:25 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 16:33 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 15:51 UTC)

Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 16:12 UTC)

Re: SRFI 35 (Conditions), SRFI 198, and do we have a compatible vision Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 14:14 UTC)

SRFI 35 compound conditions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 14:23 UTC)

Re: SRFI 35 compound conditions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 14:26 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 07:58 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 12:39 UTC)

Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:07 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 01:12 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 02:26 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 02:30 UTC)

Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 02:44 UTC)

Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:06 UTC)

Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 13:01 UTC)

Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:47 UTC)

Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 06:11 UTC)

Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 10:10 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 08:55 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:02 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 09:11 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 09:44 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 10:20 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:18 UTC)

Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC)

Re: Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:52 UTC)

Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:17 UTC)

Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:21 UTC)

Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 17:07 UTC)

Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 18:44 UTC)

Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Shiro Kawai (17 Aug 2020 22:06 UTC)

Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Aug 2020 06:09 UTC)

PC-Scheme for DOS Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2020 10:07 UTC

>     TI really wants to make it easy to use their chips, just avoid their
>     RTOS from everything I've read.]
>
> Their Scheme for DOS was pretty good; its manual is credited in the
> various RnRSes.  It's still around somewhere on the Net.

https://github.com/lambdaconservatory/scheme-release-archive/tree/master/pc-scheme/4.0
:)