I would expect (not (and (apply < x) (apply > x)))
to be true for all x Jay On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > 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 > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
