The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 14 Jun 2021 19:15 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Arthur A. Gleckler 14 Jun 2021 21:04 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 14 Jun 2021 22:34 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 15 Jun 2021 09:40 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 15 Jun 2021 21:24 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Jun 2021 08:11 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 19 Jun 2021 12:34 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 12:56 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 19 Jun 2021 23:25 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 20 Jun 2021 06:55 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Arthur A. Gleckler 21 Jun 2021 16:57 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 21 Jun 2021 17:34 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 23 Jun 2021 17:55 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Arthur A. Gleckler 23 Jun 2021 18:20 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 23 Jun 2021 19:06 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Arthur A. Gleckler 20 Jun 2021 00:28 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 20 Jun 2021 02:09 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 20 Jun 2021 02:14 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Arthur A. Gleckler 20 Jun 2021 02:33 UTC
Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them John Cowan 22 Jun 2021 21:44 UTC

Re: The linear-update SRFIs and what to do about them Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 20 Jun 2021 02:14 UTC

> >> 3) Convert all SRFI 209 linear-update procedures to mutational ones.
> >> This will require a new implementation, which Wolfgang has agreed to
> >> provide.  Draft PFN:
> >>
> >> Post-finalization note 1: The author recommends that the entire section
> >> "Linear update" be ignored, and that the procedures whose names end in ! be
> >> implemented by mutation of their enum set  arguments.  However, for
> >> backward compatibility they should return the mutated enum set, unlike
> >> other mutational procedures which return an unspecified value.
> >>
> >> Arthur: do you think this is appropriate as a PFN?
> >>
> >
> > As far as I can see, the same argument applies here as for SRFI 113, so
> > yes.
> >
> > Are you ready for me to add the PFNs now?
> >
>
> Let's wait until we have the new implementation for 209.  113 can go as
> soon as we see if there are any comments from the 113 mailing list, I think.

It's ready.  I just opened a pull request (on GitHub) for it.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"In a great man's work, at its fastest, no line is thrown away, and
it is not by the rapidity, but the economy of the execution that
you know him to be great." --John Ruskin