On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> "Joe Marshall picked the wrong way to generalize <=" is not a reason, >> historical or otherwise, for <= not being generalized to 0 or 1 >> arguments. > > Certainly not, but it carries the same weight as "Carl Eastlund claims Joe's > generalization is wrong." > > On the other hand, providing code to demonstrate a particular way > of generalizing may carry more weight than a simple assertion of > incorrectness. But I could be wrong here as well.
I am not claiming your generalization is wrong. You stated that yourself. Your argument as I understood it was, "here's a generalization, it is wrong, that's why <= isn't generalized". John has already proposed a generalization; to argue that <= doesn't generalize, you at least have to show some problem with his generalization, and ideally have to show some reason there's no other acceptable generalization either. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
