[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 19:01 +0000, Alex Queiroz wrote:
On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So what? Are we now making srfi's have an inelegant interface because
some implementations implement standard scheme poorly?
Implementing integer sets is a bit difficult with "elegant" Scheme.
We don't need integer sets. Scheme does not specify any lambda syntax
other than "this is the minimum number of parameters" and "there may be
extra parameters". The only meaning I can understand for "arity" is
with reference to the formals lists in lambda expressions. Some other
folks seem to have a rather more metaphysical understanding in mind, but
I can't quite figure out just what they mean by it.
Disjoint arities arise from case-lambda forms, which are a part of
Scheme. No metaphysics needed.