Looks like a bug in compose1 (and compose) to me. Robby
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Erik Dominikus <erik.dominiku...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had this conversation with DrRacket 5.2: > >> (procedure-arity (compose1 (lambda (x) 0) (lambda () 0))) > (arity-at-least 0) > >> (procedure-arity (compose1 (lambda (x) 0) (lambda (x) 0))) > 1 > >> (procedure-arity (compose1 (lambda (x) x) (lambda (x y) 0))) > (arity-at-least 0) > > I think the arity of the first procedure above should be exactly 0 since > (arity-at-least 0) means that the procedure can take 0, 1, 2, 3 > arguments and so on, and indeed DrRacket says that it can't: > >> ((compose1 (lambda (x) 0) (lambda () 0)) 0) > #<procedure>: expects no arguments, given 1: 0 > > By the same way of thought, I think the arity of the third procedure > should be exactly 2. > > Am I missing something? > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
