[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed new SRFI for immutable lists
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed new SRFI for immutable lists
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:51:53 -0400
- Cc: Scheme Specification team <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYN6fGk5n=YYDBzZHs6aZAtxVn7XOW-Q0SOEohQEBvur3A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20140901025019.GF5424@mercury.ccil.org> <CAD2CXes8JJOVE0LgQJgPOObV-WzDc9qY6oTOGE=tynb7BGtvrw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMPzYN6fGk5n=YYDBzZHs6aZAtxVn7XOW-Q0SOEohQEBvur3A@mail.gmail.com>
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> Yes, if you provide implementation support for it,
> see http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/shared.html
I'll have a look.
> Also for lazy data structures see
> for which I have a Scheme version lying around somewhere.
We're going to have SRFI 42 streams.
> Personally I am fond of first, second, etc.; I think they are more readable
> > than car, cadr, etc.
> At least remove the (scheme cxr) equivalents.
Okay, both go in.
> We should just remove the lset equivalents - that's what SRFI 113 is for.
> What about iqq (quasiquote) in addition to iq?
Good in principle, but painful.
> iphone seems to be missing.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.
Scheme-reports mailing list