Re: transitivity does not imply type-checking

[Jens Axel Søgaard <jensaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthias Radestock wrote:
> Jens Axel Søgaard <jensaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I was just saying *if* you make that interpretation, you need to
> > type check all arguments.

> Apologies for harping on about this, but my initial post contained a
> counter-example: an implementation of = that meets the criteria of your
> interpretation, yet does not type-check all args.

Sorry - I misread your post - I thought the example was meant to
show, that type checking wasn't neccessary in R5RS.

Your example was:

  (define (= x y . rest)
    (and (number? x) (number? y)
         (prim= x y)
         (or (null? rest) (apply my= y rest))))

Hmm - just returning #f, in error situations does indeed make
it transitive.

It does lead to strange behaviour. Even though

     (< 1 'a)     => #f
     (> 1 'a)     => #f

we get that

     (= 1 'a)     => #f .

I'd prefer as many errors to be signaled as possible, but I guess that's
a matter of taste.

What's your view?

> That is fine by me, but it is not the rationale given by the srfi
> document, which instead claims that type-checking of all args is
> implied
> by the R5RS requirement for transitivity. The point of this thread was
> to ascertain whether the latter is actually the case. It isn't.

Yes - the wording could have been better.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard