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)

Re: Generalized arrays in the presence of call/cc Bradley Lucier 30 Jul 2022 19:48 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