In The Little Schemer (4th Ed.) it is claimed that a list for which null? is false contains at least one atom, or so I understand from my reading of the text.
This doesn't make sense to me, since (atom '()) is false, and we can stick those into a list to make it non-null:
> (null? '(()))
#f
So my question is, is this a mistake in my reading, or a matter of definitions? Since it's not in the errata I assume such a well-studied book wouldn't have a mistake like this.
If we considered (()) to be the same as (() . ()) or even (cons '() '()) and then considered cons an atom then I could see how you can get there, but I don't think that's what's going on.
(this was tested in Racket 7.0, with the definition of atom? given in the book, i.e.
(define atom?
(lambda (x)
(and (not (pair? x)) (not (null? x)))))
I know this doesn't cover funny Racket features, but should be sufficient here.)
lat is assumed to be a list of atoms at that point in the book.
If it's not empty, by definition it contains some atoms in it.
It's not about Lisp, it's about the book's presentation.