Re: sorted?

<[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.lisp.guile.user
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 11:37:33AM +0000, Ricardo G. Herdt wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> Am 09.12.2024 11:21 schrieb Jeremy Korwin-Zmijowski:
> > The reference says :
> > 
> >    Scheme Procedure: *sorted?* items less
> >    C Function: *scm_sorted_p* (items, less)
> > 
> >        Return |#t| if items is a list or vector such that, for each
> >        element x and the next element y of items, |(less y x)| returns
> >        |#f|. Otherwise return |#f|.
> > 
> > I think the description should be :
> > 
> >    Return |#t| if items is a list or vector such that, for each element
> >    x and the next element y of items, |(less y x)| returns |#t|.
> >    Otherwise return |#f|.
> 
> Actually no, since less is applied to y and x in that order. This way
> (sorted? '(1 1) <) correctly returns #t as your experiments show.

I don't get it. (< 1 1) is /always/ #f, regardless of the order of the
ones?

I'm as confused as Jeremy is.

Cheers
-- 
tomás
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 195 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCZ1bXmAAKCRAFyCz1etHa
Ron9AJ4mEi2EGueW9GdDWydT7fYUQ4pxHwCfYSIxsGTMRfWN7mCX0ZBiW9GJyh4=
=0ADF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.