New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Arthur A. Gleckler
(31 Jan 2021 05:39 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(31 Jan 2021 08:58 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Arthur A. Gleckler
(31 Jan 2021 17:27 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(31 Jan 2021 19:19 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (03 Feb 2021 00:12 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Feb 2021 06:58 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(03 Feb 2021 07:25 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Feb 2021 07:30 UTC)
|
Re: New draft (#2) and last call for comments on SRFI 217: Integer Sets Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 03 Feb 2021 00:12 UTC
On 2021-01-31 14:18 -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote: > On 2021-01-31 09:27 -0800, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:58 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < > > xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote: > > > > > What happened to the XXX-search issue? I think the discussion about it is > > > still going on, isn't it? We've decide to leave the iset-search specification as-is; that is, new integers can be passed to the `update' continuation. This corresponds to the (d) option in John's list of possible solutions (in https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-217/msg/15730984/). So no changes to existing SRFIs providing `search' forms should be necessary. Hopefully this resolves the issue. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "The art of doing mathematics consists in finding that special case which contains all the germs of generality." --David Hilbert