John Cowan wrote:
Thomas Lord scripsit:
2a) sequence predicates should not be primitive in Scheme
Such was the case until R4RS. In RRRS and R3RS, the two-argument version
was standardized, and it was documented that some implementations allowed
more than two arguments. The language about monotonic sequences goes
back to RRRS. (I can't find a usable copy of RRS on line; RS is
silent on the subject.)
Neat. Thanks for the info.
BTW, I didn't mean to ignore your argument about my
"machine sampling 0 or more values in time T".... thing
just didn't finish any reply without it becoming too wordy.
Basically, your counter-machine constructions ignore
conditions that the original description asked you to stipulate
but instead of arguing against the stipulations you just ignore
them -- so, nothing is proved by your counter examples.
But, it's a very boring point to drag out, I think.
I'm satisfied that strictly binary relations would be a very
nice, Schemey way to go.
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.
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
