[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] coops
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] coops |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:12:09 -0500 (EST) |
From: Christian Kellermann <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:48:47 +0100
> * address@hidden <address@hidden> [110119 15:35]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> >all pairs are subtypes of the type of lists
>>
>> Then all pairs are lists? What about (cons 1 2)? I thought a list is
>> a pair which cdr is a list (or the empty list -- exclude that case
>> for a moment). Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I am not that firm
>> with types and i am a little confused by 'pairs are types'. In
>> general i would say: pairs are not lists and lists are not pairs
>> (because of the empty list).
>
> You are right, pairs are not lists. I wonder whether this hierarchy
> makes sense at all. Changing it so that lists are specialisations
> of pairs is also wrong obviously. Thanks to elf on #chicken for the
> hint.
In Common Lisp and Dylan, pairs are subclasses of list, btw.
cheers,
felix
- [Chicken-users] coops, schugk, 2011/01/16
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, Felix, 2011/01/17
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, schugk, 2011/01/18
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, Christian Kellermann, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, schugk, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, Thomas Chust, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, schugk, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, Christian Kellermann, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops,
Felix <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, John Cowan, 2011/01/20
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, Thomas Chust, 2011/01/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] coops, Felix, 2011/01/25