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 09 Mar 2014 19:49 UTC
Kevin Wortman scripsit: > If I understand correctly, you want to be able to take a comparison > predicate such as <? and a comparator, and produce a comparison procedure > that uses that comparator without having to explicitly pass it as as an > argument. That is the whole point of make=?, make<?, etc. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander." An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia