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)
|
For completeness, I'd like to have: (define (arg-count->bitmask min-count max-count) ...) where min-count is the minimum number of arguments, and max-count is the maximum number, or -1. (A non-infinite maximum is useful for optional arguments.) That is easy (just a couple of shifts and masks); a little harder are the inverse functions: (define (bitmask->min-count mask) ...) (define (bitmask->max-count mask) ...) I think these are expressible using bitwise-length and bitwise-first-bit-set, but I haven't tried to work it out. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/