[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.

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 19:01 +0000, Alex Queiroz wrote:

On 11/13/09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So what?  Are we now making srfi's have an inelegant interface because
 some implementations implement standard scheme poorly?

     Implementing integer sets is a bit difficult with "elegant" Scheme.

We don't need integer sets.  Scheme does not specify any lambda syntax
other than "this is the minimum number of parameters" and "there may be
extra parameters".  The only meaning I can understand for "arity" is
with reference to the formals lists in lambda expressions.  Some other
folks seem to have a rather more metaphysical understanding in mind, but
I can't quite figure out just what they mean by it.

Disjoint arities arise from case-lambda forms, which are a part of Scheme. No metaphysics needed.