On Tue 27 Sep 2011 22:43, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Would it be possible to move the explanations from the commit log to
comments in the code?
Looking at the above code, I have no idea what a var-table or a counter
is, what it’s used for, etc.
Sure. I forget sometimes, because
Hi,
(Though I think that the term ‘constant’, as used by GCC, is confusing.
I don’t have a better name to propose, though.)
How about 'algebraic'? As in functions in basic algebra. (I know it
has a different meaning, though.)
Hmm, I’m not convinced.
Or alternatively, something referencing
Hi Noah,
- You write a function that assumes its arguments are of a certain
type. You'd like to be sure this is true, so your program won't throw
exceptions in the middle.
That would be cool. However, I suspect that for best results you’d want
procedures to have type annotations, as in
Hello,
I think it can be done effectively, but I'm not quite sure what you
mean by dynamic module composition. Do you mean that this might
prevent you from making modules that use arbitrary other modules? Or
that it might not work if you loaded modules at runtime from the REPL?
I was
Hi,
There's been some discussion recently at the scheme-reports ML about a
distributed module repository. Would a guildhall be necessary if there
were a central R7RS module repository (duplication of effort)?
If so, what sort of interaction would there be (if any) between
guildhall and an R7RS
