[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: T and NIL.
- To: GJC at MIT-MC, COMMON-LISP at SU-AI
- Subject: Re: T and NIL.
- From: Scott E. Fahlman <FAHLMAN at CMU-20C>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1982 01:05:00 -0000
- Regarding: Message from George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC> of 28-Feb-82 1823-EST
I am not sure that I completely understand all of your (GJC's) recent
message. Some of the phrases you use ("the predicate-issue", for
example, and some uses of "illegal") might be read in several ways. I
want to be very sure that I understand your views. Is the following a
reasonable summary, or am I misreading you:
1. The VAX NIL group's preference for separate truth and
empty-list/false objects is not primarily due to your investment in
existing code, but rather because you are concerned about the unwisdom
of overloading the symbols T and NIL.
2. On the basis of your experience in porting large programs from
Maclisp to NIL, you report that very few things have to be changed and
that it is very easy to find them all.
3. If, nevertheless, the Common Lisp community decides to go with the
traditional Maclisp use of T and NIL as symbols, you will be able to
live with that decision.