On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Bloch <bl...@adelphi.edu> wrote:
> > Since there is in fact a well-defined and useful meaning for "(= a b c d e)", > to wit "all the numbers a, b, c, d, and e are equal," and a well-defined and > useful meaning for "(<= a b c d e)", to wit "the sequence a, b, c, d, e is > non-decreasing", it seems reasonable to implement these. Certainly, but the original poster asked why it doesn't generalize to *fewer* arguments. "(<)" = "the empty sequence is strictly decreasing"? "(>)" = "the empty sequence is strictly increasing"? -- ~jrm _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
