[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments
lord at emf.net
Sun Oct 19 22:58:37 EDT 2008
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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the r6rs-discuss