New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Arthur A. Gleckler (17 Jun 2021 04:10 UTC)
Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Jun 2021 05:32 UTC)
Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (17 Jun 2021 05:50 UTC)
Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Jun 2021 13:57 UTC)
Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (17 Jun 2021 17:32 UTC)
Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Jun 2021 05:49 UTC)
Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (18 Jun 2021 06:30 UTC)

Re: New draft (#10) of SRFI 224: Integer Mappings Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 18 Jun 2021 06:30 UTC

On 2021-06-18 07:48 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > > * fxmapping-accumulate should probably guarantee to tail-call "proc".
> > >
> > > * The same is true for fxmapping-update and similar procedures.
> >
> > Are the current semantics not enough?  As these procedures are
> > specified, they clearly deliver their results to the original
> > continuation.  What advantage is there in requiring them to
> > tail-call their procedure arguments?
>
> Tl;dr: Very important.

Thanks for explain, I've added this requirment to update, alter,
update-min and -max.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"A picture is worth 10k words--but only those to describe the picture.
Hardly any sets of 10k words can be adequately described with pictures."
--Alan J. Perlis