[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP
From: |
F. Wittenberger |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:03:15 +0100 |
Am Freitag, den 03.12.2010, 12:57 -0500 schrieb Hans Nowak:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33, David Steiner <address@hidden> wrote:
> > i'm reading SICP and practicing in chicken. in the book they redefine
> > cons, car and cdr using procedures:
> >
> > (define (cons x y)
> > (define (dispatch m)
> > (cond ((= m 0) x)
> > ((= m 1) y)
> > (else (error "Argument not 0 or 1 -- CONS" m))))
> > dispatch)
> > (define (car z) (z 0))
> > (define (cdr z) (z 1))
> >
> > however it produces an error in chicken:
> > Error: (caar) bad argument type: #<procedure (dispatch m)>
> >
> > why doesn't it work?
This is clearly a bug!
- [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, David Steiner, 2010/12/03
- [Chicken-users] Re: redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, David Steiner, 2010/12/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, Kon Lovett, 2010/12/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, Hans Nowak, 2010/12/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP,
F. Wittenberger <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, Felix, 2010/12/04
- Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, F. Wittenberger, 2010/12/04
- Re: [Chicken-users] redefining cons,car,cdr in SICP, Jim Ursetto, 2010/12/03