Re: Proposed modifications to RRRS

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>]

> Date: Thu 26 May 88 14:27:49-EDT
> From: Morris Katz <MKATZ@edu.isi.a>
> Subject: Re: Proposed modifications to RRRS

> When one actually wants AND and OR to return the values currently specified
> instead of just being boolean predicates, there is a simple and efficient
> implementation in terms of the AND and OR semantics I advocate. 

What is it?


> Lastly, I must repeat that I just don't buy the argument that language 
> designers must repeat the mistakes of the past in order to maintain 
> compatibility.

To call what was done in the past a mistake is begging the question.  

Perhaps the problem is that AND and OR are called AND and OR, suggesting
that they really are simple boolean operations with some bogosity tacked
on.

You might try suggesting that only #t be considered true.  Then AND
and OR would have to change.

-- Jeff