That's a good point Alan, and I should have mentioned into.
But this came up for me in a situation relevant to Ben's' point.
I was adding or removing a computed sequence of elements of a set based on some other
input and was using either conj or disj depending on that input, with apply.
It worked on the disj's but failed on the conj's, of course.
I could in this case have made the check at the time of change and used into or disj
as appropriate, but in general, one might be passed just the functions as Ben suggests.
Even if there is a better way to handle this problem in this case, I don't see it as an argument
against the unary conj. The unary conj is conceptually natural, is consistent with disj, does not
mask bugs, appears to really have no practical downside, and seems to have at least one useful application.
Why not include it?