On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote: > OK, so it's consistent with the null-ary (and) (no argument is false) > and (or) (there is a true argument). But from that perspective, > shouldn't the definition extend to the null-ary case, too?
I think not. How would you decide the values of (=) and (not=)? Presumably one should be true and one should be false. You can also look at (and) and (or) and (+) and (*) as each returning the identity element for their operation. There is no such identity element for =. That may put it in the same boat as (-) and (/) which really require at least one argument to make some sense. --Steve --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
