[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments
lord at emf.net
Mon Oct 20 15:23:57 EDT 2008
John Cowan wrote:
>> 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.
Unless you believe that (seq-pairwise? < #\a)
should produce an error (wrong type argument)
while (seq-pairwise? char<? #\a) should return #t.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the r6rs-discuss