Hi, Andre van Tonder wrote: > I agree. It seems clear that the base cases for /all/ of these should be #t. > It would be silly if, for example, whether a sequence is increasing could > be changed from #t to #f by removing the last element.
So here we would like to define the thunk case as a sort of limit. Take an increasing sequence and remove elements until it is gone: (< 1 2 3 4) (< 1 3 4) (< 1 3) (< 3) (<) all => #t On the other hand, take a decreasing sequence (< 4 3 2 1) (< 3 2 1) (< 3 2) (< 2) (<) all => #f? Is it less silly if, for example, whether a sequence is increasing could be changed from #f to #t by removing the last element? > Stated another way, all > of these are really an intersection (AND) of conditions, and the base (0 > argument) case for AND is #t. That is, (< 1 2 3) is equivalent to (and (< 1 2) (< 2 3)). I think this is a better argument. Even if one makes the argument that it is instead (not (or (> 1 2) (> 2 3))), one still gets #t as the base case. Regards, Jon _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
