Re: proposing a simpler mechanism

[Marc Feeley <feeley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'll admit that, along with Kent Dybvig, I'm no fan of arity  
> > inspection,
> > for a jillion reasons.  I think it's ill-conceived.
> >
> > But if it must happen, how about this:
> >
> > (procedure-arity PROC) returns two values, first, the minimum  
> > number of
> > arguments, and second, whether additional arguments are permissible.
> > This exactly covers the possibilities for standard Scheme.  It is
> > trivial to implement given any of the common facilities out there.   
> > It
> > is clear and simple and easy to specify.

Then what is (procedure-arity read) ?

Marc