TRUE, FALSE

[Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>]

    Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986  17:15 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>


	Why not just a function CONSTFN that takes a value and returns a function
	that will return that value?

    So far only two such functions have been asked for, one of which
    produces a null value and the other of which produces something
    non-null: T, for lack of any better thing.  Do we really need a 
    general function to build such things?  I don't think so.

    Down with generality, and down with the generals!

    -- Scott

The issue isn't generality, but minimizing the number of new functions.
"Why take two when one will do?"
--Guy