Re: (< complex) and friends

[Neil Jerram]

2008/9/19 Bill Schottstaedt <address@hidden>:
> map does not accept no list:
>
> guile> (map (lambda (a) a))
>
> Backtrace:
> In standard input:
>   1: 0* [map #<procedure #f (a)>]
>
> standard input:1:1: In procedure map in expression (map (lambda # a)):
> standard input:1:1: Wrong number of arguments to #<primitive-generic map>
> ABORT: (wrong-number-of-args)

Right.  The number of lists given to map should be the same as the
number of parameters the lambda takes.

Were you saying that this is a bug, or is this just to set up an
analogy with the following?

> + and * have a "natural" identity (0 and 1), so it is not silly that (+ a) is
> (+ a 0) and (+) is (+ 0 0), but #t does not strike me as a natural identity
> for < -- (< 1 1) is #f.   But I hate these kinds of discussions, so I defer...

The value of (<) seems natural to me... but I admit that I can't
explain really clearly why that is!

And then there's (and) and (or) !

Nevertheless, I still don't see any significant impact anywhere here.
Please explain further if you do.

Regards,
     Neil