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

*To*: shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: The boolean eqv function & n-ary generalisation of associative ops*From*: Alfresco Petrofsky <alfresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:57:51 -0700*Cc*: srfi-33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <200207211907.g6LJ7Qm01201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)*References*: <200207211714.g6LHEDo01095@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200207211907.g6LJ7Qm01201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Just for a little context, play this game: ask yourself, "How many > functions are there from two booleans to a boolean?" Go ahead; work > it out. Then you will see that SRFI 33 provides a name for every one > of them, and defines one operation for each such function > That is the *core idea* underlying that part of the library. In one sense, the srfi "provides a name" for bitwise-const0, etc., but in the words of the srfi these operations are "not provided". In a previous email you said that providing these would be "beyond the pale", but now you say they are part of "the *core idea*". I could go either way, but I'm a little confused by your rhetoric. You said that the notation (lambda (x y) 0) for bitwise-const0 cannot be improved upon, but one might actually want (lambda (x y) (assert-exact-int x) (assert-exact-int y) 0), at least when in safe-and-slow mode, and I think bitwise-const0 is an improvement over that. If the trivial ops are provided, it should be noted that they are all associative, and hence should all allow extra arguments. However, for only two of them are there good values to use as the result of the zero-argument case. -al

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: The boolean eqv function & n-ary generalisation of associative ops***From:*Alack Petrofsky

**Re: The boolean eqv function & n-ary generalisation of associative ops***From:*Jim Blandy

**References**:

- Prev by Date:
**Re: NAND & NOR now n-ary; Bug in BITWISE-EQV? implementation** - Next by Date:
**Re: The boolean eqv function & n-ary generalisation of associative ops** - Previous by thread:
**The boolean eqv function & n-ary generalisation of associative ops** - Next by thread:
**Re: The boolean eqv function & n-ary generalisation of associative ops** - Index(es):