Re: 7 logical-xor implementations in source tree

[Stefan Monnier]

> * Call it `xor', to go with `and' and `or'

Fine.

> * Make it n-adic, taking at least 1 argument (since the operation has no 
> identity)

I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble (we only have 7 uses so far
and they all seem happy with a 2-arg xor).
Especially since there are 2 different reasonable semantics.
It can always be extended later if needed.

> * Make it a function, so that it can be used with `apply' etc.

It's naturally a function, indeed.

> * Give it a compiler macro, for efficient partial application

Given how rarely it's used, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
Luckily if we only accept the 2-args case this can be done very cheaply
with defsubst or define-inline.


        Stefan