|
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)
|
Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al John Cowan 05 Mar 2014 01:12 UTC
Alan Manuel Gloria scripsit: > 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: I don't understand why this proposal in any way benefits SRFI 105-based code. Can you explain further? > 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. I don't see why. The idea of <? and friends is that they are generalizations of < and friends (also string<? and friends, etc.); that is, they are predicates. Rather than having the function be either a predicate or a predicate-maker, my idea is to separate the two purposes, so that in one case we always get a boolean result, in the other case a procedure. -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.ccil.org/~cowan graphs; you have a right to be here. xxxxxx@ccil.org --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath