On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > You seem to be assuming that we have to pick one binary->nary for all > binary operators.
That is the nature of `generalization'. If I have to discriminate, it isn't general. > I would choose this one for relations and the other > one for associative operators with identities. And you thus answer the original poster's question. `` is there a rationale beyond historical precedent for + and * to allow any number of arguments but, =, <=, <, >, >= to require at least two arguments?'' Yes. The two generalizations are different. I made a clumsy argument to this effect by showing that the natural generalization for add and multiply do not extend to relational operators. -- ~jrm _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
