Re: [Scheme-reports] possible error in specification of guard
John Cowan 23 Dec 2012 15:26 UTC
Per Bothner scripsit:
> Is the following a correct translation of this guard clause:
Unfortunately, `guard` is the thing I understand least about R7RS.
I recommend some testing with an R6RS system, or at least one that
implements SRFI 35. Alternatively, the r6rs-discuss list probably has
useful information.
--
Don't be so humble. You're not that great. John Cowan
--Golda Meir cowan@ccil.org
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports