From: Christian Kellermann <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:48:47 +0100
> * [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. In Common Lisp and Dylan, pairs are subclasses of list, btw. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
