No, it should just return "true" (non-nil). It shouldn't guarantee T as a value, nor any particular "true" value.
It's wrong for the programmer using a predicate to rely on the "true" value being any particular value, including T.
Therefore, doing the (when ... t) thing just makes it return one particular true value (T) that the programmer should not rely upon anyhow.
-Mark Daniel Weinreb wrote:
If you have a function that is a predicate, in the sense that the function's contract says that its value should be interpreted as being either false or true, do you think it's better to code it so that it always returns "t" for the true case?
Since Common Lisp is quite clear that when a value is being considered in the context of being true/false, nil means false and everything else means true. So from a language point of view, even considering the "intent" of the definition and not just the spec, there is no need to return t.
Furthermore, the contract of the function should make it clear that the returned value is an a true/false context. This should be in the doc string, or at least in a comment, and the function name should end in "p" (or always "-p" but let's please not get into that in this email thread). So the caller should know.
All that said, it's possible that a programmer will fail to heed the contract, simply look at the code, and take advantage of the returned value in more than true/false context. If you want to prevent that, you can do something like:
(defun ... ... (when (fn1 arg2 arg2) t))
It seems that it might depend on the circumstance: how likely do you think it is that a programmer would commit such a mistake? The more potentially valuable the returned value is, the more likely. On the other hand, if it's so valuable, maybe you should actually make that part of the contract rather than making the function have the contract of a predicate.
Is this good, bad, don't care, depends on the circumstance?
-- Dan
pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro