Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 May 2020 07:11 UTC)
|
Multiple-values SRFI
Lassi Kortela
(11 May 2020 09:09 UTC)
|
Re: Multiple-values SRFI
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 May 2020 09:41 UTC)
|
Re: Multiple-values SRFI
Lassi Kortela
(11 May 2020 10:52 UTC)
|
Re: Multiple-values SRFI
Lassi Kortela
(11 May 2020 11:04 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
John Cowan
(11 May 2020 18:02 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 May 2020 18:26 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Feeley
(11 May 2020 18:34 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 May 2020 19:29 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Feeley
(12 May 2020 04:15 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
John Cowan
(12 May 2020 15:36 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Lassi Kortela
(12 May 2020 16:07 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
John Cowan
(12 May 2020 18:19 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection Lassi Kortela (12 May 2020 18:46 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(04 Jun 2020 16:39 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Jun 2020 08:38 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
John Cowan
(09 Jun 2020 17:53 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Jun 2020 19:39 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
John Cowan
(10 Jun 2020 21:46 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(11 Jun 2020 11:55 UTC)
|
Re: Introspection
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(04 Jun 2020 16:36 UTC)
|
> We don't have a good convention for distinguishing variables from syntax > keywords, except that define- is normally syntax. The idea is to > introduce a kind of arrow for syntax representing a conversion. Is it not good enough to re-use the `->` arrow we already have? Syntax ought to be needed mainly for multiple values and for places (generalized `set!`). Other conversions can be procedures. And even the syntax looks like a procedure call, so it's interchangeable except for not being first-class.