Final draft of SRFI 117 is available
John Cowan
(26 Aug 2015 02:57 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available
Arthur A. Gleckler
(26 Aug 2015 03:23 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Takashi Kato (27 Aug 2015 07:52 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available
John Cowan
(28 Aug 2015 14:57 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available
Arthur A. Gleckler
(28 Aug 2015 15:11 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available
John Cowan
(06 Sep 2015 22:02 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available
Arthur A. Gleckler
(07 Sep 2015 04:21 UTC)
|
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Takashi Kato 27 Aug 2015 07:52 UTC
I think `list-queue-unfold-right` missing optional argument [queue]. Also I'm implementing the optional argument for `list-queue-unfold` and `list-queue-unfold-right` and I want a clarification. Suppose there are queues `ql0` and `ql1` whose elements are `(a b c d e)`. Then apply it to the procedures like this: ;; *1 (list-queue-unfold (lambda (x) (> x 5)) (lambda (x) (* x 10)) (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) 0 ql0) and ;; *2 (list-queue-unfold-right (lambda (x) (> x 5)) (lambda (x) (* x 10)) (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) 0 ql1) Should case *1 return the queue `ql0` which contains `(a b c d e 10 20 30 40 50)` unlike SRFI-1 `unfold`? Should case *2 return the queue `ql1` which contains `(50 40 30 20 10 a b c d e)`? Cheers, _/_/ Takashi Kato Email: xxxxxx@ymail.com