[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments

[Thomas Lord]

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.

-t


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20081020/a9bf9f28/attachment.htm