[r6rs-discuss] Comparison procedures' number of arguments

[John Cowan]

Isaac Morland scripsit:

> Thanks for the information.  I don't see how your Q interface has anything 
> to do with the issue at hand (although I am interested to read about as a 
> topic in its own right).  Even if the Q S-expression for (+ 1 (+ 2 (+ 3 
> 4))) was nicer than the one for (+ 1 2 3 4) you could just translate the 
> latter into the former.  But since it's the same, I'm having difficulty 
> understanding why you would even bring up the issue.

I did kind of lose track of my point, which was that extending functions
to accept arbitrarily many arguments isn't necessarily as elegant as you
said it was.  If + and * and the like were purely binary, you could
get the affect of (apply + list) using (foldl + 0 list).

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan