[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