On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:48 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 6:25 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, it seems we need a database of the built-in's "procedure-
information". Oh well, one more todo.
Is it really necessary to allow accessing the lambda-lists of
primitiv
On Jan 29, 2008 6:25 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it seems we need a database of the built-in's "procedure-
> information". Oh well, one more todo.
>
Is it really necessary to allow accessing the lambda-lists of primitives?
The lambda info object is a string - parsing it all
Thanks for the info, Kon.
I've created a ticket to track this:
http://trac.callcc.org/ticket/417
For now, I'll just special case for my needs.
Cheers,
-M
On Jan 29, 2008 12:52 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > Graham Fawcett scri
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
Hm, is it just primitive C functions that need better "procedure
information"? It might be easier to fix that, than to build and
maintain a database.
Really only the primitives that are also user-exposed, like +
but un
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
> Hm, is it just primitive C functions that need better "procedure
> information"? It might be easier to fix that, than to build and
> maintain a database.
Really only the primitives that are also user-exposed, like +
but unlike cons (which is not, technically, a primitiv
On Jan 29, 2008 12:25 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:18 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Graham Fawcett scripsit:
> >
> >> It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though,
> > Sometimes you get a useful result:
> >
> > (procedure-information li
On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:18 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though,
Sometimes you get a useful result:
(procedure-information list) => (list . lst120)
And sometimes you don't:
(procedure-information
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
> It's of less use when the procedure takes variable arguments, though,
Sometimes you get a useful result:
(procedure-information list) => (list . lst120)
And sometimes you don't:
(procedure-information +) => C_plus
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 29, 2008 11:28 AM, Mark Fredrickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to determine at run time the arity of function? I'm
> thinking something like
>
> (arity (lambda (x y z) (* x y z)))
> => 3
You can use 'procedure-information':
(procedure-information (lambda (x y z) (* x y z))
Is it possible to determine at run time the arity of function? I'm
thinking something like
(arity (lambda (x y z) (* x y z)))
=> 3
Something that could also inform me about "rest" params would useful too.
My searching of the wiki has turned up no info.
Thanks in advance,
-Mark
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
