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)
|
I'll admit that, along with Kent Dybvig, I'm no fan of arity inspection, for a jillion reasons. I think it's ill-conceived. But if it must happen, how about this: (procedure-arity PROC) returns two values, first, the minimum number of arguments, and second, whether additional arguments are permissible. This exactly covers the possibilities for standard Scheme. It is trivial to implement given any of the common facilities out there. It is clear and simple and easy to specify. Thomas