|
More r6rs/guile
Felix Thibault
(27 Sep 2020 16:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: More r6rs/guile
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2020 16:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: More r6rs/guile
Felix Thibault
(27 Sep 2020 16:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: More r6rs/guile
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Sep 2020 17:17 UTC)
|
|
R7RS conformance
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2020 17:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Sep 2020 18:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2020 18:47 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Sep 2020 19:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2020 19:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2020 19:47 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Sep 2020 19:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: R7RS conformance Lassi Kortela (27 Sep 2020 19:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: More r6rs/guile
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2020 19:32 UTC)
|
|
Re: More r6rs/guile
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Sep 2020 19:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: More r6rs/guile
Felix Thibault
(27 Sep 2020 22:30 UTC)
|
Re: R7RS conformance Lassi Kortela 27 Sep 2020 19:54 UTC
> A list of nonconformities for each R7RS implementation would be better > and simpler, I think, than trying to reduce it all to a single number. True. Best of all would be a de facto standard test suite, and a well-defined way to run it on each implementation. What's the closest thing we have to that -- the Larceny test suite? > In principle I think this should be included with the implementation > itself, like the BUGS section on man pages. This is a good idea.