On Tuesday 21 October 2008 14:01:16 Egil Kvaleberg wrote: > 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
If you looked at the code in my posting before this one, the results with my code would be: (sorted? "a" "b" "c") => #t (sorted? "a" "b") => #t (sorted? "a") => #f (sorted?) => #f ..because the last two cases are not ordered. Cheers, -KenD Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? A: Four. Calling a tail a leg don't make it one. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
