Isaac Morland scripsit:
> Thanks for the information. I don't see how your Q interface has anything
> to do with the issue at hand (although I am interested to read about as a
> topic in its own right). Even if the Q S-expression for (+ 1 (+ 2 (+ 3
> 4))) was nicer than the one for (+ 1 2 3 4) you could just translate the
> latter into the former. But since it's the same, I'm having difficulty
> understanding why you would even bring up the issue.
I did kind of lose track of my point, which was that extending functions
to accept arbitrarily many arguments isn't necessarily as elegant as you
said it was. If + and * and the like were purely binary, you could
get the affect of (apply + list) using (foldl + 0 list).
--
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
--Nicholas van Rijn
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
