Jeremy Vuillermet <[email protected]> writes:
> Could it return a (partial > 2) ? Because > works with n args and not just two. (> 2) => (partial > 2) then why not (> 2 3) =? (partial > 2 3) when is the sensible place to stop? Now, if > took at most two args, this would be a sensible thing. As far as I can see, with > defined as it is you get the win that (> 10 9 8 7 6 5) works sensible but get a counter-intuitive behaviour for (> 1) Gains and losses. Phil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
