Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo]

Marcin Borkowski writes:

> Seemingly, it doesn't make much sense: what is the purpose of 
> saying 
>
> (and (whatever) t) 
>
> instead of just 
>
> (whatever) 
>
> for a predicate?  Of course, this "normalizes" any "truthy" 
> value to "t", but is it really needed for anything (except 
> perhaps being elegant)?

Perhaps so that it returns t instead of whatever, if whatever is 
not nil.

--
Jorge.