[Top][All Lists]

[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 <address@hidden>,
 Emanuel Berg <address@hidden> wrote:

> Rusi <address@hidden> 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, address@hidden
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]