Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Bradley Lucier
(27 Jul 2022 12:39 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Jul 2022 13:15 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Bradley Lucier
(27 Jul 2022 15:11 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
John Cowan
(27 Jul 2022 20:19 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(27 Jul 2022 21:04 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Bradley Lucier
(28 Jul 2022 21:47 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
John Cowan
(30 Jul 2022 15:33 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Jul 2022 17:06 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc Bradley Lucier (30 Jul 2022 19:48 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Bradley Lucier
(06 Aug 2022 17:58 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
John Cowan
(06 Aug 2022 18:05 UTC)
|
Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc
Bradley Lucier
(10 Aug 2022 18:27 UTC)
|
On 7/30/22 11:32 AM, John Cowan wrote: > Side issue: there are a lot of inconsistencies in the names of formal > arguments: array vs. A, f vs. op, etc. These should be cleaned up. Some of these differences are intentional---op is an operator (two arguments), f is a function, etc. Overall, the SRFI is a quarter million character document written over a period of seven (!) years in three passes. It has inconsistencies in notation. Changing argument names requires changing their references in the text, etc. I fear that making these changes will introduce errors. I will not be going through the document to make these changes, but if others wish to do so I'll accept pull requests to my repository (after I set up an appropriate branch to accept them). Brad