On Wed, 17 Sept 2025 at 16:03, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Rowley <[email protected]> writes: > > On Wed, 3 Sept 2025 at 23:32, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Btw., I think we should stick to the *_p() naming (for "predicate", I > >> think) for compiler-intrinsic-affiliated functions/macros that report > >> boolean results. > > > I didn't know what the _p suffix was meant to indicate. Do you have a > > link which states that it's for "predicate"? > > It absolutely stands for "predicate". That's an ancient Lisp-ism. > Here's the first link I found with some quick googling: > > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node69.html
Thanks for the confirmation. I'm happy enough to leave the _p in there, but at the same time, I don't see the particular reason to follow some ancient Lisp rule. Maybe I'm in the minority, having never programmed in Lisp. Anyway, at least the justification for it is in the archives now. Thanks. David
