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)

Re: proposing a simpler mechanism Thomas Bushnell BSG 13 Nov 2009 04:54 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