# [plt-scheme] Re: boolean operators on integers

 From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com (hendrik at topoi.pooq.com) Date: Sat Jul 12 10:43:02 EDT 2008 Previous message: [plt-scheme] Re: boolean operators on integers Next message: [plt-scheme] Re: boolean operators on integers Messages sorted by: [date] [thread] [subject] [author]

```On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:35:17AM -0700, wooks wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 12, 9:02 am, Matthias Felleisen <matth... at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> > Can you explain why you think 0 and 1 should have anything to do with
> > true and false? (I am afraid that it somehow slipped into a document
> > that may confuse our users and we need to clarify this. -- In
> > centuries past, around 1738, people thought that 0 stood for #f and
> > that 1 stood for #t. But this pun hasn't been useful to real
> > programmer since then so I don't know where one would fine this idea,
> > except in history books.)
> >

Recursive function theorists in mid-20'th century or before (definitely
before computers) used 0 = true and 1 = false.  This had the nice effect
that they could use exponentiation for not:

0 ** 0 = 1
0 ** 1 = 0

-- hendrik

```

 Posted on the users mailing list. Previous message: [plt-scheme] Re: boolean operators on integers Next message: [plt-scheme] Re: boolean operators on integers Messages sorted by: [date] [thread] [subject] [author]