Ken Dickey wrote: > I know (<=) => #t looks normal _to you_. But I believe that you are a > specialist and I think that you are trying to inject a particular logic into > a "basic literacy" kind of usage.
Sorry to disturb an otherwise interesting discussion, but isn't all of this much easier to grasp if one considers the functions <, <= etc predicates, which is really what they are imho. Consider a predicate sorted? that tests for alphabetically sorted strings - I assume no-one would argue the logic of: (sorted? "a" "c" "b") => #f (sorted? "a" "b" "c") => #t (sorted? "a" "b") => #t (sorted? "a") => #t (sorted?) => #t Using the same logic: (<= 1 3 2) => #f (<= 1 2 3) => #t (<= 1 2) => #t (<= 1) => #t (<=) => #t QED? Egil _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
