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