Re: proposing a simpler mechanism Alex Queiroz 13 Nov 2009 12:41 UTC


On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <> wrote:
> 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.

     Unlike Dybvig's proposal, this allocates the multiple return
values in the heap in implementations that implement (values) as a
vector constructor.