[racket] arity of + versus <=

On 10/28/2011 12:39 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 40 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> I would expect
>>
>> (not (and (apply<  x) (apply>  x)))
>>
>> to be true for all x
>
> This, and many other points, were all part of a pretty big thread on
> the R6RS list a while ago.
>
>    http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2008-October/003566.html
>
> Since so much verbiage was used then, it would be useful to go over
> it in this context too.

I just finished reading that thread. I will now thank the Racket 
community for not making the most inane points made over there, back then.

For the purposes of this discussion, the big difference between Racket 
and R6RS is that we already have variable-arity comparison operators.

(And I love them. Checking between-ness is so easy.)

Neil T