bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Shiro Kawai
(07 Oct 2020 10:01 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
John Cowan
(07 Oct 2020 15:15 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(07 Oct 2020 16:15 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(07 Oct 2020 16:47 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(07 Oct 2020 18:21 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Shiro Kawai
(07 Oct 2020 21:06 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Lassi Kortela
(08 Oct 2020 13:07 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Shiro Kawai
(08 Oct 2020 13:13 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Oct 2020 13:24 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
John Cowan
(10 Oct 2020 07:42 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Shiro Kawai
(10 Oct 2020 09:38 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(10 Oct 2020 15:04 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
John Cowan
(10 Oct 2020 20:40 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(10 Oct 2020 23:08 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
John Cowan
(11 Oct 2020 03:20 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (11 Oct 2020 08:26 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(11 Oct 2020 08:39 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
John Cowan
(11 Oct 2020 08:42 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 Oct 2020 09:10 UTC)
|
Optional features in SRFIs again, this time with syntax
Lassi Kortela
(11 Oct 2020 11:38 UTC)
|
Re: Optional features in SRFIs again, this time with syntax
John Cowan
(11 Oct 2020 13:01 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(11 Oct 2020 18:22 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 Oct 2020 18:31 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 Oct 2020 17:20 UTC)
|
Re: bytestring isn't a datatype, right?
John Cowan
(14 Oct 2020 15:20 UTC)
|
Comparing two vectors
Lassi Kortela
(08 Oct 2020 13:13 UTC)
|
Re: Comparing two vectors
John Cowan
(08 Oct 2020 15:01 UTC)
|
Re: Comparing two vectors
Lassi Kortela
(08 Oct 2020 20:42 UTC)
|
Am So., 11. Okt. 2020 um 05:20 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > No, I'm saying this: it is already the case that the R7RS-large is handling the lexical syntax separately from the rest of existing SRFIs, *without* needing to split them into separate SRFIs. In other words, an implementation of SRFI 178 is not required to implement #* in the reader and writer, and if we vote it into R7RS-large that will not mean that #* becomes a part of the language or of S-expression data files. This sounds like a not so good idea as it reduces the applicability of cond-expand. This only works as intended when implementations implement the full SRFI and not just parts of it. Splitting of SRFIs into two parts is an easy solution because then you can test with (library (srfi 207)) and, say, (library (srfi 207*)). Marc