|
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. See this commit: https://github.com/gambiteer/srfi-231/commit/6b495daf2eb9536f47b605d52558591c08fb51ad I removed what I considered to be unhelpful inconsistencies. Comments invited. Brad
