[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: XOR

   /**** ccvaxa:commonlisp / KMP@SCRC-STON / 11:42 pm  Dec 17, 1985 ****/
   From @SU-AI.ARPA:KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA  Tue Dec 17 23:41:59 1985
   From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
   Subject: XOR
           Steele@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
   In-Reply-To: <851216164401.5.DCP@NEPONSET.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
   Message-Id: <851217104550.2.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

   ...
   
   On the more serious side, if we did introduce XOR, people might eventually
   want reasonable answers to the following related issues, which would be left
   open...
   
    * Why is OR not called IOR? (Or, why is LOGIOR not called LOGOR)
----------
Actually, I don't like calling GLS's proposed function XOR.  An
exclusive or should be true if exactly one of the arguments is
true, not if any odd number of arguments is true.  The proposed
XOR isn't exclusive enough ...

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece