[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 23:13:49 -0400
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <address@hidden>,
 "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Emanuel Berg <address@hidden> writes:
> > Barry Margolin <address@hidden> 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 

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]