[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments
cowan at ccil.org
Sun Oct 19 22:30:09 EDT 2008
Thomas Lord scripsit:
> 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.
What conditions? I must have missed them.
> 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.
If seq-pairwise? takes a binary order predicate as an argument
as well as the sequence being tested, I think it's straightforward.
No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous cowan at ccil.org
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
More information about the r6rs-discuss