Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Are you saying (not (not x)) generates more efficient
> byte-code? I hate to break it to you, but the
> Commodore 64 demo era is long gone :)

That's what I'm saying, in the case of a lisp VM (emacs lisp, clisp).

In the case of a not too dumb native compiler, both should generate the
same native code.


>>> So I think `booleanp' shouldn't be thought of as
>>> a normalizer but rather as a type predicate, much
>>> like them `stringp', `integerp', and so on.
>>
>> Of course.  That's what the "p" in "booleanp" means!
>
> If that is "of course" then what are we talking about?

I'm just stating that you are stating the obvious. 
Obviously :-) 

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk