|
NaN's
Paul Schlie
(29 Oct 2005 15:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: NaN's
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(29 Oct 2005 16:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: NaN's
Paul Schlie
(29 Oct 2005 18:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: NaN's
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(29 Oct 2005 19:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: NaN's
Paul Schlie
(29 Oct 2005 22:49 UTC)
|
|
Error objects in general
bear
(29 Oct 2005 19:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(29 Oct 2005 20:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
bear
(30 Oct 2005 05:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(30 Oct 2005 14:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Alan Watson
(29 Oct 2005 21:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
bear
(30 Oct 2005 05:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Taylor Campbell
(30 Oct 2005 05:45 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general bear (30 Oct 2005 06:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Taylor Campbell
(30 Oct 2005 16:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Alan Watson
(30 Oct 2005 05:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
bear
(30 Oct 2005 06:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Alan Watson
(30 Oct 2005 06:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Paul Schlie
(30 Oct 2005 12:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Paul Schlie
(30 Oct 2005 13:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
John.Cowan
(30 Oct 2005 16:30 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Alan Watson
(30 Oct 2005 20:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: Error objects in general
Alan Watson
(30 Oct 2005 13:17 UTC)
|
Re: Error objects in general bear 30 Oct 2005 06:08 UTC
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Taylor Campbell wrote: > Why does it not suffice for READ to return objects that were > written and to signal, not to return, conditions for a condition > handler to receive? In the absence of any standard signalling mechanism that's ever made it into an R*RS report, this is a joke, right? Bear