|
SRFI development in the age of git
John Cowan
(12 Jul 2020 23:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Bradley Lucier
(12 Jul 2020 23:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Jul 2020 00:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Jul 2020 00:30 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Jul 2020 01:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(13 Jul 2020 06:45 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Linas Vepstas
(13 Jul 2020 07:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(13 Jul 2020 07:09 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Linas Vepstas
(13 Jul 2020 07:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
John Cowan
(13 Jul 2020 18:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Linas Vepstas
(13 Jul 2020 21:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
John Cowan
(14 Jul 2020 00:38 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (14 Jul 2020 09:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Linas Vepstas
(14 Jul 2020 22:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
John Cowan
(14 Jul 2020 23:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Linas Vepstas
(14 Jul 2020 23:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
John Cowan
(15 Jul 2020 03:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Linas Vepstas
(15 Jul 2020 08:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Jul 2020 07:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(13 Jul 2020 07:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Jul 2020 15:59 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI development in the age of git Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 14 Jul 2020 09:59 UTC
Am Di., 14. Juli 2020 um 02:38 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > Just cherry-picking a few points... Just cherry-cherry-picking. :) > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:40 PM Linas Vepstas <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Compare to, for example SQL -- it blows the doors off syntax-case in usability and power. > > > Well, no; syntax-case allows arbitrary Scheme, so it is Turing-complete. SQL is not, unless the implementation of CTEs allows arbitrary nesting. SQL is also extremely rigid, deficient, and un-orthogonal compared to a true relational algebra implementation like Tutorial D. In fact, already the pattern language of syntax-rules is Turing-complete.