Glad to hear you're all set. I've submitted a PR anyways, so hopefully this will be fixed for others.
Thanks for letting us know! Robby On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Erik Dominikus <erik.dominiku...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
