[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Have one-argument '<? et al function as 'make<? et al

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 114 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 114 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Alan Manuel Gloria scripsit:

> The above function will work properly on an empty list (we assume
> empty list is sorted) if (<? c) returns #t.  But if (<? c) were to
> return a function, it would instead return a function (well, a
> function *is* a true value, so it will still work 99.99% of the
> time....)

An implementation could add the behavior that (<? comp) and (<? comp
obj) always return #t, but given that < does not do this, I'm reluctant
to make it part of this SRFI, as I suspect it will only be used rarely.
It would be easy to roll your own predicate `monotonically-increasing?`
if you want it to handle lists; it would probably be more efficient than
using `apply` anyhow.

At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs     John Cowan
abruptly vanished. The theory that a single         cowan@xxxxxxxx
catastrophic event may have been responsible        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
has been strengthened by the recent discovery of
a worldwide layer of whipped cream marking the
Creosote-Tutelary boundary.             --Science Made Stupid