> 4. The 'all-of' and 'some-of' sample implementations don't return the
predicate's truthy value.

Fixed

2022-09-03, št, 20:17 John Cowan <[email protected]> rašė:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 9:51 AM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. Can (complement proc) return #f if proc returns multiple values?
>>
>
> As in the rest of Scheme, multiple/zero values are forbidden unless
> explicitly permitted.
>
>> 2. Why include both 'swap' and 'flip'?  The sample implementation
>> of 'swap' (srfi/235-impl.scm, line 9) differs from the spec. in that
>> the returned procedure accepts a "rest" argument:
>>
>
> The documentation for `swap` is wrong: the idea is that it reverses the
> first two arguments and leaves the rest in the given order, whereas `flip`
> reverses all the arguments.  Fixed.
>
>> 3. Minor clarifications: Is (conjoin) equivalent to (constantly #t)?
>> Is (disjoin) equivalent to (constantly #f)?
>>
>
> Yes, but no change is required.  Remember that what is defined here is not
> the behavior of (conjoin '()), which is equivalent to (constantly #t), but
> of ((conjoin '() arg ...), which is equivalent to #t.
>
> 4. The 'all-of' and 'some-of' sample implementations don't return
>> the predicate's truthy value.
>>
>
> Arvydas, can you fix this?  Thanks.
>
>> 5. The spec. of 'on' is ambiguous.  mapper is applied "to each obj
>> in any order", then reducer is applied to the results--but in what
>> order?  The example doesn't settle this, since the reducer (+) is
>> commutative.
>>
>
> My intention was that the reducer should be applied to the results in
> order, but perhaps it would be better to say that the reducer must be
> commutative.  What do you think?
>
> 6. What happens if (on f g) is applied to no arguments?
>>
>
> I've changed it to require at least one argument.
>
>> 7. Is (apply-chain) equivalent to (apply-chain values)?  If not,
>> what happens?
>
>
> I've changed this to require at least one argument also.
>
>> 8. The example for 'case-procedure' lacks an else-thunk.
>>
>
> It's meant to be optional, so I've added square brackets.
>
>

Reply via email to