Date Index - August 2008 - srfi-99@srfi.schemers.org

01 Aug 2008 04:27 UTC	Initial comments	Alan Watson
11 Aug 2008 05:39 UTC	Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 06:00 UTC	Clarify mutability of all define-record-type <field spec>	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 06:08 UTC	Description of rtd-mutator does not specify what it does for immutable fields	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 06:30 UTC	Why the inversion of mutability between make-rtd and define-record-type?	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 07:07 UTC	Consider a different define-record-type syntax	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 07:29 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Per Bothner
11 Aug 2008 07:38 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Elf
11 Aug 2008 09:04 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Per Bothner
11 Aug 2008 12:53 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Physics
11 Aug 2008 21:50 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 21:52 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 21:58 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
11 Aug 2008 22:26 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Elf
11 Aug 2008 22:29 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Elf
11 Aug 2008 22:57 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Elf
11 Aug 2008 23:09 UTC	Re: Initial comments	William D Clinger
11 Aug 2008 23:10 UTC	Re: Clarify mutability of all define-record-type <field spec>	William D Clinger
11 Aug 2008 23:11 UTC	Re: Description of rtd-mutator does not specify what it does for immutable fields	William D Clinger
11 Aug 2008 23:11 UTC	Re: Why the inversion of mutability between make-rtd and define-record-type?	William D Clinger
11 Aug 2008 23:13 UTC	Re: Consider a different define-record-type syntax	William D Clinger
11 Aug 2008 23:32 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
12 Aug 2008 00:32 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
12 Aug 2008 00:34 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Derick Eddington
12 Aug 2008 01:56 UTC	Re: Consider a different define-record-type syntax	Derick Eddington
12 Aug 2008 04:27 UTC	Re: Initial comments	Alan Watson
12 Aug 2008 06:23 UTC	Re: Initial comments	William D Clinger
12 Aug 2008 07:21 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Per Bothner
12 Aug 2008 07:39 UTC	Reference implementation's use of datum->syntax is not portable	Derick Eddington
12 Aug 2008 12:20 UTC	Re: Initial comments	Alan Watson
12 Aug 2008 15:09 UTC	Re: Initial comments	William D Clinger
12 Aug 2008 15:14 UTC	Re: Reference implementation's use of datum->syntax is not portable	William D Clinger
12 Aug 2008 15:33 UTC	Re: Reference implementation's use of datum->syntax is not portable	Physics
12 Aug 2008 19:35 UTC	rtd-constructor and immutable fields	Arthur Smyles
13 Aug 2008 02:20 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Elf
13 Aug 2008 02:24 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Elf
13 Aug 2008 03:25 UTC	Two suggestions about record identity	Alexey Radul
13 Aug 2008 03:45 UTC	Re: Two suggestions about record identity	Ray Blaak
13 Aug 2008 07:35 UTC	Re: Why vectors?	Per Bothner
29 Aug 2008 21:52 UTC	ANN: Implementation of draft for Gambit	Arthur Smyles