Re: proposing a simpler mechanism Marc Feeley 13 Nov 2009 13:55 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