|
Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(09 Aug 2002 14:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Dave Mason
(09 Aug 2002 14:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(09 Aug 2002 23:28 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(12 Aug 2002 11:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(13 Aug 2002 00:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(13 Aug 2002 17:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(15 Aug 2002 01:47 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Tony Garnock-Jones
(15 Aug 2002 11:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
bear
(15 Aug 2002 15:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
sperber@xxxxxx
(29 Aug 2002 08:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
bear
(01 Sep 2002 20:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
Richard Kelsey
(01 Sep 2002 22:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses
bear
(04 Sep 2002 03:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (04 Sep 2002 06:55 UTC)
|
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net>
Is it your understanding that the srfi process is about producing
library code?
No, as it happens, but that is irrelevent. To recapitulate:
Bear: The business of passing around thunks and continuations
as objects as in SRFI 34 seems to me to get in my way and
complicate things, and I don't think it actually provides
more generality or functionality.
Richard Kelsey: The generality it provides is that it runs in
implementations of R5RS.
Specifying SRFI 34, or any other SRFI, in terms of R5RS has utility.
I said nothing about it being a requirement.
-Richard Kelsey