SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 12:37 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 14:01 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 14:52 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 15:45 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 16:06 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 14:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 15:22 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 16:05 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 16:39 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 16:56 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 15:23 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 15:35 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 17:05 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 17:47 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 18:56 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 18:59 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Aug 2020 19:45 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
hga@xxxxxx
(30 Aug 2020 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 17:55 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Aug 2020 18:27 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 18:57 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Aug 2020 19:10 UTC)
|
Don't panic
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 19:28 UTC)
|
Re: Don't panic
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Aug 2020 19:34 UTC)
|
Re: Don't panic
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Aug 2020 20:00 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
Lassi Kortela
(30 Aug 2020 19:57 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 198 and the Schemeregistry
John Cowan
(30 Aug 2020 20:09 UTC)
|
Am So., 30. Aug. 2020 um 20:56 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > Given the direction I am moving in this thread, a compound condition would make more sense, since a status may have properties in more than one property group. So each group of properties is a simple condition So in the registry, we would register condition types? Possible condition types to be registered: - &errno [holding the errno number] - &caller [holding the procedure and the arguments of the call that conceptually caused the status] - &posix [just a flag] - &who [name of the procedure to blame; we already have this in R6RS] - ... > One thing I don't understand about compound conditions is how you get access to the simple conditions inside. I think Lassi has answered this.