Re: proposing a simpler mechanism David Van Horn 13 Nov 2009 19:25 UTC

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 19:01 +0000, Alex Queiroz wrote:
>> Hallo,
>>
>> On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> wrote:
>>> So what?  Are we now making srfi's have an inelegant interface because
>>>  some implementations implement standard scheme poorly?
>>>
>>      Implementing integer sets is a bit difficult with "elegant" Scheme.
>
> We don't need integer sets.  Scheme does not specify any lambda syntax
> other than "this is the minimum number of parameters" and "there may be
> extra parameters".  The only meaning I can understand for "arity" is
> with reference to the formals lists in lambda expressions.  Some other
> folks seem to have a rather more metaphysical understanding in mind, but
> I can't quite figure out just what they mean by it.

Disjoint arities arise from case-lambda forms, which are a part of
Scheme.  No metaphysics needed.

David