Re: proposing a simpler mechanism

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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:
> Hallo,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,