John Cowan wrote:
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.
Unless you believe that (seq-pairwise? < #\a)
should produce an error (wrong type argument)
while (seq-pairwise? char<? #\a) should return #t.
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
