After looking at collects/racket/private/list.rkt, I think this issue might be too hard to deal with; I forgot that a procedure could have optional and keyword arguments.
Thus, I decided to roll my own stripped-down version of 'compose'; I only need a little of it actually. Thank you. On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 22:56 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > 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
