[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] multiple returns from map functions?
- To: Jim Rees <jimreesma@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] multiple returns from map functions?
- From: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 20:12:34 +0200
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <BANLkTimCpK232QpnwNqUu1X8QhTFBXZ98w@mail.gmail.com> (Jim Rees's message of "Thu, 5 May 2011 12:08:39 -0400")
- References: <m34o59xjtj.fsf@unquote.localdomain> <B5B1129E42584497AC01C33006AE770C@SIXFOUR> <BANLkTimCpK232QpnwNqUu1X8QhTFBXZ98w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu 05 May 2011 18:08, Jim Rees <jimreesma@x> writes:
> Should the following be valid?
>
> (map cons #0=(a b c . #0#) '(1 2 3 4 5))
> => ((a 1) (b 2) (c 3) (a 4) (b 5))
>
> (list? '#0=(a b c . #0#)) ==> #f
>
> ..and I'm pretty sure map requires lists.
SRFI-1 map simply requires that one of the lists be finite, and R7RS
specifies that the result will have the length of the shortest list, so
there would be no ambiguity.
(Just arguing here; I don't know what's right.)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports