Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(11 Apr 2006 22:35 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 01:58 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 02:54 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Per Bothner
(12 Apr 2006 03:05 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 03:12 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Eli Barzilay
(12 Apr 2006 03:17 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Eli Barzilay
(12 Apr 2006 03:20 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 03:27 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Per Bothner
(12 Apr 2006 03:20 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 04:20 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 04:32 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 05:11 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 12:16 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Eli Barzilay
(12 Apr 2006 12:29 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 13:07 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 13:36 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords John Cowan (12 Apr 2006 14:28 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 14:57 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 16:26 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Per Bothner
(12 Apr 2006 16:49 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 16:56 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Eli Barzilay
(12 Apr 2006 13:37 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2006 04:54 UTC)
|
Re: Alternative formulations of keywords
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2006 16:07 UTC)
|
Marc Feeley scripsit: > 1) find an alternative mechanism that avoids the need for keyword > objects (i.e. you view foo: as a symbol and want to keep it that way) Yes, though I am obviously okay with allowing such symbols to be self-evaluating. > 2) find an alternative mechanism that avoids the proposed parameter > list syntax (with #!key, etc) No, although I don't consider this essential, since my approaches all involve a standardized run-time representation. > 3) find an alternative implementation of the SRFI (i.e. you are OK > with the specification) No. -- John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org