[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] multiple returns from map functions?
- To: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] multiple returns from map functions?
- From: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 20:48:40 +0200
- Cc: "scheme-reports@x" <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <op.vu0rchkz0p3ku8@localhost> (Aaron W. Hsu's message of "Thu, 05 May 2011 13:39:43 -0400")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <B5B1129E42584497AC01C33006AE770C@SIXFOUR> <op.vu0rchkz0p3ku8@localhost>
On Thu 05 May 2011 19:39, "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x> writes:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:43:53 -0400, <xacc.ide@x> wrote:
>> The brings up the question whether list control procedures can accept
>> Should the following be valid?
> This is interesting, normally, `map' is specifically not allowed to take
> circular lists and you get an error when trying to deal with them.
> However, that is partly because of the restriction prior to this that all
> arguments should be of the same length. Now, I think, there is an
> opportunity to consider `map' in different terms. Whether we should do
> this or not is still up to question.
I don't know either, but do see srfi-1.
Scheme-reports mailing list