|
proposing a simpler mechanism
R. Kent Dybvig
(13 Nov 2009 03:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 04:23 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism Taylor R Campbell (13 Nov 2009 04:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
R. Kent Dybvig
(13 Nov 2009 16:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Per Bothner
(13 Nov 2009 16:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 04:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Alex Queiroz
(13 Nov 2009 13:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Marc Feeley
(13 Nov 2009 14:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 18:39 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 18:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Alex Queiroz
(13 Nov 2009 19:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 19:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
David Van Horn
(13 Nov 2009 19:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(13 Nov 2009 19:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
David Van Horn
(13 Nov 2009 19:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 Nov 2009 20:25 UTC)
|
|
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
David Van Horn
(12 Jan 2010 18:51 UTC)
|
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:55:40 -0800 From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> What do you expect procedure-arity to return for a procedure which accepts any number of arguments? IEEE +inf? -1, presumably. The numerical value isn't significant; its representation as a bit string in two's-complement is what matters, and for -1 that is a bit string of all ones.
