2008/9/19 Bill Schottstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> map does not accept no list:
>
> guile> (map (lambda (a) a))
>
> Backtrace:
> In standard input:
> 1: 0* [map #<procedure #f (a)>]
>
> standard input:1:1: In procedure map in expression (map (lambda # a)):
> standard input:1:1: Wrong number of arguments to #<primitive-generic map>
> ABORT: (wrong-number-of-args)
Right. The number of lists given to map should be the same as the
number of parameters the lambda takes.
Were you saying that this is a bug, or is this just to set up an
analogy with the following?
> + and * have a "natural" identity (0 and 1), so it is not silly that (+ a) is
> (+ a 0) and (+) is (+ 0 0), but #t does not strike me as a natural identity
> for < -- (< 1 1) is #f. But I hate these kinds of discussions, so I defer...
The value of (<) seems natural to me... but I admit that I can't
explain really clearly why that is!
And then there's (and) and (or) !
Nevertheless, I still don't see any significant impact anywhere here.
Please explain further if you do.
Regards,
Neil
