Re: strings draft
Paul Schlie
(23 Jan 2004 02:48 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft
tb@xxxxxx
(23 Jan 2004 03:45 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft
Paul Schlie
(23 Jan 2004 12:16 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft (musings)
Paul Schlie
(23 Jan 2004 14:15 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft
tb@xxxxxx
(23 Jan 2004 18:53 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft
Paul Schlie
(23 Jan 2004 21:26 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft (premature, need first class type definition support first?)
Paul Schlie
(24 Jan 2004 21:16 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft (premature, need first class type definition support first?)
Tom Lord
(24 Jan 2004 22:05 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft (premature, need first class type definition support first?) Paul Schlie (24 Jan 2004 22:17 UTC)
|
Re: strings draft (premature, need first class type definition support first?) Paul Schlie 24 Jan 2004 22:17 UTC
unfortunately likely true (although still wish it weren't). > From: Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> > >> This I suspect is possibly really what folks should be spending their time >> to refine, because if scheme more natively supported the ability to define >> new first-class data types/sub-types, and correspondingly extend it's core >> procedures to be aware of them; numerous new facilitates and features could >> be experimented with and refined, without having to require a language >> revision or new implementation to enable it. > > I think you are on the scent of a red herring.