|
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)
|
> On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> 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. >> Then what is (procedure-arity read) ? Marc
