Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al John Cowan 15 Mar 2014 16:15 UTC

Alan Manuel Gloria scripsit:

> 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....)

An implementation could add the behavior that (<? comp) and (<? comp
obj) always return #t, but given that < does not do this, I'm reluctant
to make it part of this SRFI, as I suspect it will only be used rarely.
It would be easy to roll your own predicate `monotonically-increasing?`
if you want it to handle lists; it would probably be more efficient than
using `apply` anyhow.

At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs     John Cowan
abruptly vanished. The theory that a single
catastrophic event may have been responsible
has been strengthened by the recent discovery of
a worldwide layer of whipped cream marking the
Creosote-Tutelary boundary.             --Science Made Stupid