John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> The reason bitwise-nand and friends have only two arguments (and this comes
> from Olin's original) is that they aren't associative: it's ambiguous
> whether (bitwise-nand a b c) means (bitwise-nand (bitwise-nand a b) c) or
> (bitwise-nand a (bitwise-nand b c)), and these are *not* equivalent.
> Rather than choosing one of these arbitrarily, users have to say what they
> mean.
Well, how about that. :)
That is a great argument. I'll make those two binary then, as the spec
suggests. Thanks!
Regards, Frank
--
In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- RFC 1925
