[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
So what? Are we now making srfi's have an inelegant interface because
some implementations implement standard scheme poorly?
We could simply write in C if we wanted to.
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 12:41 +0000, Alex Queiroz wrote:
> 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.
> Unlike Dybvig's proposal, this allocates the multiple return
> values in the heap in implementations that implement (values) as a
> vector constructor.