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 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
