Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <87k2xamfkg.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
 "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:

> Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
> 
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> 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 
REPL.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***