I'm a newbie, so feel free to bash me on the noggin if i'm missing
something:
Personally, I would love = to support null-ary case; being able to
use apply with = seems very powerful, and would remove the need to
check for an empty sequence.
-Scott
On Dec 3, 9:39 pm, Krukow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Dec 4, 5:40 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. By the identity element argument, (/) should be 1 and (-)
> should be 0.
>
Regarding *the* identity argument, I think it only works if the
operator is associative. Otherwise, you can talk about a left identity
or a
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> But it is also the case that subtraction and division _do_ have
> identity
> elements. They follow directly from the application of the inverse
> operation to the corresponding operator's identity element. In other
> words, the identity elem
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 18:48, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > OK, so it's consistent with the null-ary (and) (no argument is
> > false) and (or) (there is a true argument). But from that
> > perspective, shouldn't the definition extend to
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> OK, so it's consistent with the null-ary (and) (no argument is false)
> and (or) (there is a true argument). But from that perspective,
> shouldn't the definition extend to the null-ary case, too?
I think not. How would you decide the values
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 18:28, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:15 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > By the way, I do understand while (or) is false and (and) is true,
> > but I don't see why = allows a single argument.
>
> I don't know the answer, but I do see it making sense
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:15 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> By the way, I do understand while (or) is false and (and) is true,
> but I
> don't see why = allows a single argument.
I don't know the answer, but I do see it making sense as the final
value in this sequence:
(= 1 1 1 ...)
(= 1 1 1)
(=
Hi,
What's the rationale for accepting unary applications of =?
To wit:
user=> (= nil)
true
user=> (= true)
true
user=> (= false)
true
user=> (= 0)
true
user=> (= 1)
true
user=> (= =)
true
etc.
By the way, I do understand while (or) is false and (and) is true, but I
don't see why = all
