Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al Alan Manuel Gloria (26 Feb 2014 04:16 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
Kevin Wortman
(28 Feb 2014 06:39 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
Alan Manuel Gloria
(28 Feb 2014 22:00 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
Kevin Wortman
(09 Mar 2014 05:03 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
John Cowan
(09 Mar 2014 19:49 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
John Cowan
(05 Mar 2014 01:36 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
Alan Manuel Gloria
(15 Mar 2014 10:02 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
Alan Manuel Gloria
(15 Mar 2014 10:08 UTC)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al
John Cowan
(15 Mar 2014 16:15 UTC)
|
Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al Alan Manuel Gloria 26 Feb 2014 04:16 UTC
Hello SRFI-114 mailing list, This is a rather SRFI-105-centric proposal, but I'd like to propose that, if '<? and friends are given a single comparator argument, it return a function predicate: (<? comparator) => predicate-function ... and so on... This allows the following use of SRFI-105: (define-record-type <set> (node c l v r) set? (c get-c) (l get-l) (v get-v) (r get-r)) {(define set[v-find] (cond ((null? set) #f) ((not (set? set)) (raise-type-error-whatever-whatever)) (otherwise (let ((c (get-c set)) (v (get-v set))) (cond ({v-find (<? c) v} (get-l set)[v-find]) ({v-find (=? c) v} #t) ({v-find (>? c) v} (get-r set)[v-find])))))} Admittedly, it's possible to just use 'make<? and friends if we're going to use SRFI-105 anyway, but it seems clearer to use <? if SRFI-105 is something to support. Sincerely, AmkG