|
SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 18:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 18:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 18:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through Lassi Kortela (10 Dec 2022 20:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(10 Dec 2022 20:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 20:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 20:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 21:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 22:09 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Lassi Kortela
(10 Dec 2022 22:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
John Cowan
(10 Dec 2022 21:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(10 Dec 2022 22:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(10 Dec 2022 22:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI 228 final read-through
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Dec 2022 02:54 UTC)
|
> Would it be reasonable to add the clarification I described? This wording is ambiguous: "they will simply be added to the existing comparator libraries of RnRSes and Scheme implementations, rather than being in a separate library". It's not clear what "adding to a library" and "being in a separate library" mean. How about the following: "All identifiers defined in this SRFI are exported from the (srfi 228) library. The author hopes that the procedures from this SRFI are incorporated into comparator libraries assembled for Scheme implementations and future editions of RnRS."
