[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: boole
- To: Earl A. Killian <Killian at MIT-MULTICS>
- Subject: Re: boole
- From: JonL at PARC-MAXC
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1982 20:28:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp at SU-AI
- In-reply-to: Killian's message of 19 July 1982 1321-pdt
The problem really is that BOOLE is a functional selecting among 16
moderatly random functions, rather than a simple function about which
one can talk of "consistent" extensions. In fact, it would be a pain not
to have a simple n-argument LOGAND, LOGXOR, and LOGOR. Probaably
the only reason for continuing existence of BOOLE is the lack of a
generally recognizable name for (BOOLE 4 . . . ). Adoption of names like
BITCLEAR (presumably originating from the VAX operation of the same
name) is a step in the right direction.