Yesterday, David Van Horn wrote:
I think {-1,0,1} is the worst of all worlds. I prefer the more
lenient approach of allowing any number[*]. This follows the Lisp
tradition of returning more than just the truth, since a
comparison can also convey the difference between the arguments; in
More than a week ago, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/11/2012 02:36 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
It's a little unfortunate that there's a slight impedance mismatch
between what datum-order provides and what sort expects; the
my-less-than function in the example adapts
On 06/21/2012 09:38 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
More than a week ago, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/11/2012 02:36 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
It's a little unfortunate that there's a slight impedance mismatch
between what datum-order provides and what sort expects; the
On 6/21/12 6:04 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/21/2012 09:38 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
More than a week ago, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/11/2012 02:36 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
It's a little unfortunate that there's a slight impedance mismatch
between what
This response leaves us with the impression that we whimsically challenged
established conventions in the general and the Lisp-specific PL family. In
addition it leaves us with inconsistencies across our libraries, which I am
coming to consider more and more as a serious problem.
Now -- I
Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
It's a little unfortunate that there's a slight impedance mismatch
between what datum-order provides and what sort expects; the
my-less-than function in the example adapts the output of
datum-order so it can be used with sort.
Thanks for pointing it out (I didn't
On 06/11/2012 02:36 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
It's a little unfortunate that there's a slight impedance mismatch
between what datum-order provides and what sort expects; the
my-less-than function in the example adapts the output of
datum-order so it can be used with
7 matches
Mail list logo
