[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 23:12:40 -0400
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <address@hidden>,
 Emanuel Berg <address@hidden> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <address@hidden> writes:
> > (booleanp nil) => (nil t)
> > (booleanp t) => (t)
> > (booleanp something-else) => nil
> Really? This is what I get:
>     (booleanp nil) ; t
>     (booleanp t)   ; t
>     (booleanp 1)   ; nil

I know. I was showing what you would get if it didn't use (and ... t) to 
canonicalize the value.

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]