[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