> I think you'll find it easier to reason first about an f
> which takes as many args as your conditionals produce, so
> you won't be struggling to splice your "bunch of values"
> into a bigger argument list.
yes, thank you tomas,
i stopped trying to return multiples values, and instead call the
f
2018-04-05 10:16 GMT+02:00 calcium :
>> I think you'll find it easier to reason first about an f
>> which takes as many args as your conditionals produce, so
>> you won't be struggling to splice your "bunch of values"
>> into a bigger argument list.
>
> yes, thank you tomas,
> i stopped trying to r
> Not sure what you aim at.
> Though, above seems to be easier with:
>
> (define (f . rest) (apply + rest))
>
> (f)
> -> 0
> (f 1 2 3)
> -> 6
> (f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
> -> 55
>
> Cheers,
> Harm
>
yes, it easier for this function, but when we have functions with
different "types" like the
Just to let nyacc c99 uses know ...
In the process of testing my "FFI Helper" I have found it necessary to
expand the
nyacc c99 parser a bit.
First of all, thanks to Taylan for providing great support for his
scheme-bytestructures
package. This provide the C-Scheme compatibility needed to su
