Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <87lhhqnxip.fsf@debian.uxu>,
 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> > (booleanp nil) => (nil t)
> > (booleanp t) => (t)
> > (booleanp something-else) => nil
> 
> Really? This is what I get:
> 
>     (booleanp nil) ; t
>     (booleanp t)   ; t
>     (booleanp 1)   ; nil

I know. I was showing what you would get if it didn't use (and ... t) to 
canonicalize the value.

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