Thomas Lord scripsit: > 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.
What conditions? I must have missed them. > 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. -- No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous [EMAIL PROTECTED] internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
