Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv?
John Cowan 24 Dec 2010 20:39 UTC
Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
> > Peter, the better way to do the kind of thing you are looking for
> > is PARAMETERIZE. I wouldn't advocate it for CASE, though.
>
> Any pointers? Or is it the PLT/Racket thing?
SRFI 39.
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British
Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence
of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if
the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports