[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Defun example should actually implement defun

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Michael Sperber <sperber>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:53:23 +0200

John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:

> The defun example in report section 8 should actually implement
> (simplified) defun rather than a mere clone of define.

Fixed. Thanks!

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla

Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 05:53:23 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Michael Sperber: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Missing word in report section 9.13"
Previous message: Michael Sperber: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Missing procedure make-custom-textual-input/output-port"
In reply to: John Cowan: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Defun example should actually implement defun"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:01 UTC