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

Re: Two maybe-bugs and two proposals




Thought about that, too. When we changed from (<? compare) to (<? compare x y)
the previous functionality got lost, and this is a way to get it back included;
we would like to support different styles (within reason) of using the functionality
of the SRFI. I need to think about the implications some more.

Sebastian.

----
Dr. Sebastian Egner
Senior Scientist Channel Coding & Modulation
Philips Research Laboratories
Prof. Holstlaan 4 (WDC 1-051, 1st floor, room 51)
5656 AA Eindhoven
The Netherlands
tel:       +31 40 27-43166   *** SINCE 10-Feb-2005 ***
fax:      +31 40 27-44004
email: sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx








srfi-67-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

14-04-2005 19:07

       
        To:        Sebastian Egner/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@PHILIPS
        cc:        srfi-67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dmason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Subject:        Re: Two maybe-bugs and two proposals

        Classification:        




>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:28:12 +0200, Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

> The alternatives are: Parametric tests (<? compare x y)
> vs. higher-order procedures (<? compare) => predicate.

> I would like to think about this first, and come back to it later.

Why not have <? with a single parameter produce a predicate, and with
more parameters do the operation?  Reduces cognitive load, and gives
the best of both worlds.

../Dave