Binary relations versus associative operations? Subjective opinion: I'm not saying it couldn't be otherwise, but to me the difference makes sense. At least (< 1) should always be an error in my opinion. Regarding (< 1 2 3 4) as a shortcut for 1 < 2 < 3 < 4, well, that's more debatable.
Best, Erich On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 20:32 -0700, Dan Grossman wrote: > Very minor point, but is there a rationale beyond historical precedent > for + and * to allow any number of arguments but, =, <=, <, >, >= to > require at least two arguments? > > It seems more uniform for the comparators to return #t when given 0 or > 1 arguments rather than an error. > > It would allow writing (apply < xs) instead of (or (null? xs) (null? > (cdr xs)) (apply < xs)). > > (Notice I left - out of the discussion. Since - already has > non-uniform behavior for 1 argument, it seems fine to raise an error > for 0 arguments.) > > (No, I don't really care about this detail.) > > --Dan > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
