* [email protected] <[email protected]> [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. So, suggestions? Kind regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
