-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 22-04-12 14:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Alexei,
>
> Alexei Matveev <alexei.matv...@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>>>> How about this:
>>>>
>>>> Return @code{#t} iff @var{items} is a list or vector such
>>>> that, for each element @var{x} and the next element @var{y}
>>>> of @var{items}, @code{(@var{less} @var{x} @var{y})} returns
>>>> @code{#f}.
>>>>
>>>> This avoids use of ‘m’, which would need to be defined, and
>>>> makes it clear what “comparing element i to the preceeding
>>>> element” means.
>>
>> Yes, "m" should not be mentioned. But I think you got it
>> backwards again:
>>
>> Return @code{#t} iff @var{items} is a list or vector such that,
>> for each element @var{x} and the next element @var{y} of
>> @var{items}, @code{(@var{less} @var{y} @var{x})} returns
>> @code{#f}.
>>
>> Note the order of x and y in (less? y x) in the last line.
>
> Oops, indeed.
>
> Pushed in commit fd07759b7d4c9d631090b04855ab81b6a2109e9e.
>
> Thanks for the report, patch, and review!
So it seems the rewording was about whether a list like '(2 2) is
sorted or not. IIUC the rewording makes it a sorted list according to
<, because (not (< 2 2)) is #f.
Is that really what is wanted?
Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk+Y+b0ACgkQp/VmCx0OL2zB1wCfZ9Zp5JpJw4frqfpXOnCp2xvM
75kAnjJi/CpmNvh7M9sqQTbFzj7pTniN
=6xtZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
