On 29 Feb 2008, at 2:24 pm, John Cowan wrote:
Ah, but disjointness in value is all that's required...
Technically yes, but most of us find predicates like number?, string?,
and symbol? rather handy all the same,
Ah, true, I'd not thought of people using symbol? - good point.
Ok, on which grounds, I'd accept a new type: 'token', perhaps. Which
is basically a symbol but responds to token? rather than symbol?, and
also, when you define one with (define-token bob), you get (define
bob (make-token 'bob)) (define (bob? x) (eq x bob)). (and (bob? bob)
(token? bob)). However, then people start writing meta-token-code
that uses (token? ...) and we have to start from scratch with
something else. So do we make the bold move of not defining (token? x)?
ABS
--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/?author=4
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
