I think we can get them in this sense: > > (arity-includes? (procedure-arity (case-lambda [(x) x][(x y) x][(x y z) > > x])) 1) > #t > > (arity-includes? (procedure-arity (case-lambda [(x) x][(x y) x][(x y z) > > x])) 3) > #t > > (arity-includes? (procedure-arity (case-lambda [(x) x][(x y) x][(x y z) > > x])) 4) > #f
but I agree that it is of questionable value. -- Matthias On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Asumu Takikawa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-06-06 06:31:27 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> Sorry for being so late to the discussion, but I agree that something >> like `class-constructor-arity` and `class-constructor-arity-includes?` >> should be added to `racket/class`. > > Are those even possible to implement? > > After all, I can construct a class that has 2 init arguments on > Wednesday and has 3 on Friday (by checking the date and then using > different `super-new` calls in the branches). > > Cheers, > Asumu ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
