Re: [Chicken-users] A few questions...

[felix winkelmann]

On 8/25/05, Benedikt Rosenau <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:53:37AM +0200, felix winkelmann wrote:
> 
> > Q3: What are you missing most desperately from Chicken, or better:
> >   if there is one thing that you really want it to have, what would that be?
> 
> I would like have an arity-function, i.e.:
> 
> (define (bla fasel) ...)
> (arity bla) = > 1
> 
> It should also give the arity in cases like:
> (define (blubb . fasel) ...)
> 

There is the new `(procedure-formation PROC)' procedure, which
gives the signature (possible mangled a little) for most visible lambdas.
Since it has a bug, you need either the current darcs head, or this patch:

(library.scm:)

3753c3753,3754
<       (##sys#read (open-input-string (##sys#lambda-info->string info))) ) ) ) 
)
---
>       (##sys#read (open-input-string (##sys#lambda-info->string info)) #f) ) 
> ) ) )

Note that this isn't very efficient. But it keeps the lambda-information small.


cheers,
felix