[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] A few questions...
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] A few questions... |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:01:48 +0200 |
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
- Re: [Chicken-users] A few questions..., (continued)