[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

From: Emanuel Berg
Subject: Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 23:24:59 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

Barry Margolin <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".

You misunderstand.

I said what I thought the function to be: type
predicate, not normalizer of booleans.

Then I hear there is a general need for the boolean
type in programming. I also hear that the type
predicate is a way, the first step, to bridge that
hole in Elisp.

I say there is no need for a boolean type.

Now Mr. Adams have impressed us all by his practical
resourcefulness by greping the Emacs source for the
function and found that this type predicate is used
very rarely and for a likewise small domain of tasks.

Conclusion: Counter-intuitive the seemingly general
purpose of the predicate, there is no corresponding
implementation field, so the statement that it is
a patch for a missing cornerstone in programming in
general is incorrect.

underground experts united

reply via email to

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