Abdulaziz Ghuloum scripsit: > You only need to go back to the description of =, <, >, <=, and >= > from the report to figure it out: > "These procedures return #t if their arguments are (respectively): > equal, monotonically increasing, monotonically decreasing, monotonically > nondecreasing, or monotonically nonincreasing, and #f otherwise. "
Well, I don't know. That would make =, <=, and => of one argument #t, and < and > #f, I suppose, contradicting Ken Dickey's view, who would make them all #f. And it's even less clear about the zero-argument cases: considering just (=), where there are zero comparisons to make, are we to say that the union of no equalities is true, or is it more sensible to make it false? My view tracks R6RS and indeed all its predecessors back to at least RRRS: with fewer than two arguments, these predicates make no sense. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
