[racket] arity of + versus <=

From: Carl Eastlund (cce at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 28 13:30:00 EDT 2011

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> "Joe Marshall picked the wrong way to generalize <=" is not a reason,
>> historical or otherwise, for <= not being generalized to 0 or 1
>> arguments.
> Certainly not, but it carries the same weight as "Carl Eastlund claims Joe's
> generalization is wrong."
> On the other hand, providing code to demonstrate a particular way
> of generalizing may carry more weight than a simple assertion of
> incorrectness.  But I could be wrong here as well.

I am not claiming your generalization is wrong.  You stated that
yourself.  Your argument as I understood it was, "here's a
generalization, it is wrong, that's why <= isn't generalized".  John
has already proposed a generalization; to argue that <= doesn't
generalize, you at least have to show some problem with his
generalization, and ideally have to show some reason there's no other
acceptable generalization either.


Posted on the users mailing list.