> Ken Dickey wrote: > > Personally, I think that a mismatch between the expected number of > > "arguments" to a continuation is like a mismatch to the number of > > arguments to a function call -- it should raise an exception to alert the > > system/programmer that there is a problem. > > > > I see the "less than 2 arguments" comparison case in the same way. I.e. > > my personal preference is that an exception be raised. [This is a > > different question than "What would a sensible result be in such a > > case?".]
On Sunday 19 October 2008 10:58:13 Thomas Lord wrote: > In general, deciding that an ordering predicate "expects" two or more > arguments expresses an expectation that is kind of arbitrary relative to the simplest accounts of the underlying domains. It is an "arbitrary restriction," allegedly for the programmer's own good: precisely the kind of thing we're taught to avoid. Ah. So (define (foo? x . rest) #t) (foo? 3 4 5) ;=> #t (foo? 3) ;==> #t therefore (foo?) ;==> #t because the base case of all predicates is #t and this is the least restrictive??? What about the principle of least surprise? I really find it less surprising if the code does the (perhaps wacky) things I specify than I get "unspecified results". -KenD _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
