[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 23:11:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) |
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 ***
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, (continued)
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/04/18
- Message not available
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/18
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/18