[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 102 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 102 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
- To: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: proposing a simpler mechanism
- From: Alex Queiroz <asandroq@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:41:03 +0000
- Cc: "R. Kent Dybvig" <dyb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srfi-102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: srfi-102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RlT1N+qtBy8yxOQCx7zZyp51+FrYXIzZTrVV1EDLY7U=; b=P3vOkOmQiQ2xCPuRNpgWAd+NmjsuDqvQ3VNTvdw7SRoVTnGBUgqUQJ6oYm9JyYL+m+ yTlHi8ktybzrXIRE1axm69WtJAzEjpKdJviejdv5C7s0GG1yxeJhO5r7whiE3IgNq0sj UhNz9EMeepU+gKbD40jBRk2KMR63oqkEkhXSE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bfNQY1ZJL3VFpgZMMztb7zD//ph+psg7gn7gTw0y2AWmPNKBR234b9jnYZluE8MBpU aN/RNEMYAKLmFG0K6kEJcSZXMSslYyg5dymGKjI4grGKCoC3BdiLA6TgPX8Gfdv2QAV6 Rz33WTPC/7Qd+u3HScclDNLXbG12CqsyOFdsA=
- In-reply-to: <1258088062.10520.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <200911130158.nAD1ww8C007840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1258088062.10520.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hallo,
On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'll admit that, along with Kent Dybvig, I'm no fan of arity inspection,
> for a jillion reasons. I think it's ill-conceived.
>
> But if it must happen, how about this:
>
> (procedure-arity PROC) returns two values, first, the minimum number of
> arguments, and second, whether additional arguments are permissible.
> This exactly covers the possibilities for standard Scheme. It is
> trivial to implement given any of the common facilities out there. It
> is clear and simple and easy to specify.
>
Unlike Dybvig's proposal, this allocates the multiple return
values in the heap in implementations that implement (values) as a
vector constructor.
Cheers,
--
-alex
@asandroq
http://www.ventonegro.org/