[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments

[Thomas Lord]

John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Lord scripsit:
>
>   
>>   2a) sequence predicates should not be primitive in Scheme
>>     
>
> Such was the case until R4RS.  In RRRS and R3RS, the two-argument version
> was standardized, and it was documented that some implementations allowed
> more than two arguments.  The language about monotonic sequences goes
> back to RRRS.  (I can't find a usable copy of RRS on line; RS is
> silent on the subject.)
>
>   


Neat.  Thanks for the info.

BTW, I didn't mean to ignore your argument about my
"machine sampling 0 or more values in time T".... thing
just didn't finish any reply without it becoming too wordy.

Basically, your counter-machine constructions ignore
conditions that the original description asked you to stipulate
but instead of arguing against the stipulations you just ignore
them -- so, nothing is proved by your counter examples.

But, it's a very boring point to drag out, I think.

I'm satisfied that strictly binary relations would be a very
nice, Schemey way to go.

I still wish I didn't want to reach for number-seq-pairwise?
instead of a more generic seq-pairwise? but Scheme lacks any
good way to write seq-pairwise?.   That seems like a hard,
interesting problem.

-t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20081019/5d2e3ae1/attachment.htm