On 8/25/05, Benedikt Rosenau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:53:37AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote: > > > Q3: What are you missing most desperately from Chicken, or better: > > if there is one thing that you really want it to have, what would that be? > > I would like have an arity-function, i.e.: > > (define (bla fasel) ...) > (arity bla) = > 1 > > It should also give the arity in cases like: > (define (blubb . fasel) ...) >
There is the new `(procedure-formation PROC)' procedure, which gives the signature (possible mangled a little) for most visible lambdas. Since it has a bug, you need either the current darcs head, or this patch: (library.scm:) 3753c3753,3754 < (##sys#read (open-input-string (##sys#lambda-info->string info))) ) ) ) ) --- > (##sys#read (open-input-string (##sys#lambda-info->string info)) #f) ) > ) ) ) Note that this isn't very efficient. But it keeps the lambda-information small. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
