[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way? |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:13:49 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <87k2xamfkg.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
>
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >
> >> (booleanp nil) => (nil t)
> >> (booleanp t) => (t)
> >> (booleanp something-else) => nil
>
> And even if that was true, that would still be a valid implementation,
> since both (nil t) and (t) are generalized booleans that are true!
That's what I said in my post. When used in a boolean context, a
generalized boolean is fine. But it would be confusing when used in a
REPL.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, (continued)
RE: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Drew Adams, 2015/04/17
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Tassilo Horn, 2015/04/18
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/17
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/17
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19