[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments

[John Cowan]

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