2008/10/23 Elf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the definition of monotonic increase and
decrease relies on pairwise comparison; a sequence with one element is neither
increasing nor decreasing.
No, it is both increasing and decreasing. A sequence is increasing if,
for every i, j from the range of its
An imported library named (bar) is required to be version at least
2.5.7. What I'd like to say is:
(import (bar (= (2 5 7
but you can't. So using what R6RS does let you say, what is the correct
and most simple way to mean version at least 2.5.7? It's trickier
than you might at first
You might want to check out the archives, where this was discussed until all
involved were blue in the face. For what it is worth, I agree with you.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Derick Eddington wrote:
An imported library named (bar) is required to be version at least
2.5.7. What I'd like to say
DISCLAIMER: This missive is devoid of semantic content.
On Thursday 23 October 2008 00:37:14 Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
2008/10/23 Elf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the definition of monotonic increase and
decrease relies on pairwise comparison; a sequence with one element is
neither increasing
Just a note
Comparison procedures returning #f (or throwing exceptions) for
single and zero-arity cases would cause errors in code I've written
that sorts directories of files into order based on their timestamps.
The basic logic is, while unsorted, do this. If one-file and
zero-file
On Thursday 23 October 2008 15:42:59 Ray Dillinger wrote:
Comparison procedures returning #f (or throwing exceptions) for
single and zero-arity cases would cause errors in code I've written
that sorts directories of files into order based on their timestamps.
Thank you. I do appreciate
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Ken Dickey wrote:
Assuming a condition is true without requiring existence is something one
should do very carefully. It would seem much more natural to prove
properties of entities that exist than for those that don't exist.
Empty and singleton lists certainly exist
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 16:04 -0700, Ken Dickey wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 15:42:59 Ray Dillinger wrote:
I've assumed that the predicates are true *unless* there is a pair
in sequence that violates the condition, because that seems to me
the obvious and only reasonable way for them to
