I always suspected this to be a logical joke of forcing people to write
their own quantifiers and to not let them fall for predicate logic.
The best thing about a logic scheme declaring everything but really
everything to be true when it is not false are expressions like the
following:
(when (cond (#f 'true)) 'what-is-true?) => 'what-is-true?
Yes, even unspecified is not false but it could have been. But that was
not specified. ;-)
On 06/08/2015 17:55, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
No, it's syntax.
On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:09 AM, sagyo12341...@gmail.com wrote:
In racket, the proc apply-or is needed.
(or #f 1 2 #f 3 4 #f)
1
(apply or (list #f 1 2 #f 3 4 #f))
. or: bad syntax in: or
(define (apply-or lst) (foldr or #t lst))
. or: bad syntax in: or
(define (apply-or lst) (foldr (lambda (x y) (or x y)) #t lst))
(apply-or (list #f 1 2 #f 3 4 #t))
1
(foldl (lambda (x y) (or x y)) #t (list #f 1 2 #t 3 4 #t))
#t
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
