Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <87d2322li0.fsf@debian.uxu>,
 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

> Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> I never used `booleanp' and I never experienced
> >> that the boolean built-in type was missing from my
> >> "ontology".
> >
> > If you how to write (and grok) an 'if' you have
> > boolean in your ontology. That you dont know that
> > you know is ok
> 
> I know what a *boolean* is, just not why I would need
> a built-in data type to express it.

It's not a built-in type. It's a conceptual type, like "list".

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***