# [racket] arity of + versus <=

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>* On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Bloch <bloch at adelphi.edu> wrote:
*>*
*>>*
*>>* Since there is in fact a well-defined and useful meaning for "(= a b c d e)", to wit "all the numbers a, b, c, d, and e are equal," and a well-defined and useful meaning for "(<= a b c d e)", to wit "the sequence a, b, c, d, e is non-decreasing", it seems reasonable to implement these.
*>*
*>* Certainly, but the original poster asked why it doesn't generalize to
*>* *fewer* arguments.
*>*
*>* "(<)" = "the empty sequence is strictly decreasing"?
*>* "(>)" = "the empty sequence is strictly increasing"?
*
That's certainly what they'd mean. What do you see here as a reason
for not generalizing?
--Carl