# [racket] Boolean expressions [Was: static variables question]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:28:55AM -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>* If (implies a b ... z) is equivalent to (implies a (implies b ... z)), then
*>* it is also equivalent to (implies (and a b ...) z). In which case, the
*>* 1-ary case should be clear: just return z. In truth, it is not really
*>* necessary to have n-ary implies if you're willing to nest the (and ...)
*>* explicitly. Given that Scheme/Racket n-ary operators tend to have the
*>* "..." last, with occasional exceptions like list* and apply, restricting
*>* implies to 2 arguments might avoid cases where (implies a b c d e) is
*>* confusing to read. (implies (and a b c d) e) is clearer.
*
Of course, that's just the type-equivalence involved in currying.
-- hendrik