Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

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! 

But it is probably better that (booleanp (booleanp object)) be true too.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk