[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?
From: |
Rusi |
Subject: |
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way? |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:35:23 -0700 (PDT) |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 8:41:19 AM UTC+5:30, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Emanuel Berg wrote:
>
> > Rusi 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".
Ha! Ha!! What a fantastic one-line summary-example of what I was trying to say!
I always marvel at how Lisp puns on the word 'list':
- Sometimes 'normal' lists -- like arrays in other languages
- Sometimes heterogeneous -- like structs
- Sometimes recursive structured -- aka trees
- Sometimes homoiconic -- code=data
- And yet at bottom they are just s-expressions -- the barest possible binary
tree -- each internal node containing nothing but subtrees
And so -- to expand a little on what you are saying:
-- Getting lisp limited to the formal language definition is nothing more than
getting the defs of car/cdr/null/nil/cons
-- Getting lisp as a lisp programmer means getting all the above and more,
making Eric Raymond's mystical sounding quote quite literal:
| Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will
| have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better
| programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp
| itself a lot.
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, (continued)
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?,
Rusi <=
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/04/18
- Message not available
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/18
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/18