[racket] on the arity of the composition of procedures with different arities

Looks like a bug in compose1 (and compose) to me.

Robby

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Erik Dominikus
<erik.dominikus71 at 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