Re: Junctive puzzles.

[Miroslav Silovic]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup.  My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
   4 < X < 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it violates associativity.
If one wants to violate associativity, one should presumably *not*
use the chained comparison notation!
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
 

I think this is correct, however... this is not what I meat in my 
comment. Note I didn't use chained comparison anywhere.

What I meant is that for any form with two parameters (in the example, 4 
< ___ and ___ < 2), aparently it's not the same whether the two 
parameters refer to the same junction or to two equal (but distinct) 
junctions.

   Miro