On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > 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"?
That's certainly what they'd mean. What do you see here as a reason for not generalizing? --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
