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

Re: Two maybe-bugs and two proposals

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 67 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 67 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.


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