Re: [Chicken-users] [s...@speechcode.com: More SRFI reviewers needed.]

2016-01-10 Thread John Cowan 
Jeremy Steward scripsit:

> Nonetheless, I noticed that the SRFI document mentions implementing
> lazy sequences in a different way (utilizing SRFI 121: Generators,
> which is also on your list). I was wondering if the lazy-seq egg has
> been brought up whatsoever regarding this SRFI, and if there's some
> difference I'm not seeing here. 

As best I can tell, the lazy-seq egg is more like SRFI 41 than like
SRFI 127.  I'm considering turning it into a SRFI to serve as a possible
alternative to SRFI 41 and/or 127.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] [s...@speechcode.com: More SRFI reviewers needed.]

2016-01-06 Thread John Cowan 
- Forwarded message from "Arthur A. Gleckler"  -

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:09:21 -0800
From: "Arthur A. Gleckler" 
To: srfi-annou...@srfi.schemers.org
Subject: More SRFI reviewers needed.

Happy new year, Scheme users and implementers!

We need your help.

Partly as a result of the R7RS-large standardization effort
(see ),
there are now twelve draft SRFI (Scheme Requests for
Implementation ) in progress:

  

  SRFI 121: Generators
  SRFI 122: Nonempty Intervals and Generalized Arrays
  SRFI 125: Intermediate hash tables
  SRFI 126: R6RS-based hashtables
  SRFI 127: Lazy Sequences
  SRFI 128: Comparators (reduced)
  SRFI 129: Titlecase procedures
  SRFI 130: String cursors
  SRFI 131: ERR5RS Record Syntax (reduced)
  SRFI 132: Sort Libraries
  SRFI 133: Vector Library (R7RS-compatible)
  SRFI 134: Immutable Deques

While there has been excellent discussion on each, I would
like to encourage more Scheme users and implementers to give
their feedback on the SRFI documents and their reference
implementations, tests, etc.  Participating in the
discussion is an excellent way to help shape the standard.
The goal is to make sharing code between Scheme
implementations more practical and pleasant.

If you're interested, just read a SRFI document in which
you're interested,
e.g. ; review the
discussion archive; sign up for the associated mailing list
(or  for
all SRFI discussions); and post away.  We're grateful for
all constructive feedback.

Thank you, and happy scheming!

— SRFI editor

- End forwarded message -

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Normally I can handle panic attacks on my own; but panic is, at the moment,
a way of life. --Joseph Zitt

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] [s...@speechcode.com: More SRFI reviewers needed.]

2016-01-06 Thread Jeremy Steward 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

| SRFI 127: Lazy Sequences

Sorry as I do not have much to say towards the other SRFI's, as I am
somewhat ignorant as to their process, however I noticed this one and
could only think of the lazy-seq egg by Moritz Heidkamp
(http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/lazy-seq#author). I've had a lot of
good experience with the egg (although at first I will admit its usage
confused me quite thoroughly).

Nonetheless, I noticed that the SRFI document mentions implementing
lazy sequences in a different way (utilizing SRFI 121: Generators,
which is also on your list). I was wondering if the lazy-seq egg has
been brought up whatsoever regarding this SRFI, and if there's some
difference I'm not seeing here. My understanding is that the lazy-seq
egg wraps the lazy-list in a record type that encapsulates the first
element and the generating expression, but I may be wrong. Other than
being able to use (car lazy-lst) and (cdr lazy-lst) normally, is there
a specific reason for the difference here?

Apologies if this comes off as noise on the list, this is purely my
curiosity speaking.

- -- 
Jeremy Steward


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=1lnM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users