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 20:22 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>: > > In R7RS they could have different names. (scheme bytestring-notation) > > and (scheme bytestring), for instance. (But does cond-expand even make > > sense for reader notation? Surely it’d cause a reader error in any > > case?) That doesn't help outside R7RS-large. > Right. There's no reason a split couldn't be made when/if the SRFI is > added to R7RS-large. And yes--doesn't cond-expand with lexical syntax > get us into the abyss of phasing, anyway? I don't understand the latter comment (apart from the fact that phasing does not have to be viewed as an abyss...). We are not talking about loading a reader extension at library load time (this would, in fact, touch on phasing issues), but about statically checking whether such a reader extension is available. As in: (cond-expand ((library (srfi 207)) (include "file-using-u8-notation.scm")) (else (include "unreadable-file.scm")))) In this case, "unreadable-file.scm" could be generated from "file-using-u8-notation.scm" by some tool that expands the SRFI 207 notation. One SRFI 207 systems, I have the advantage with the above cond-expand that I can edit the master file and can experiment with the result immediately without regenerating "unreadable-file.scm".