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 Alan Manuel Gloria 15 Mar 2014 10:08 UTC
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Alan Manuel Gloria <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not clear to me if (<? c) would mean anything useful anyway, so On second thought: #!sweet define (sorted-list? srfi-114-comparator list) ! apply <? srfi-114-comparator list The above function will work properly on an empty list (we assume empty list is sorted) if (<? c) returns #t. But if (<? c) were to return a function, it would instead return a function (well, a function *is* a true value, so it will still work 99.99% of the time....) Sincerely, AmkG