Yes, this sounds like the best solution so far. On Sonntag, 26. August 2018 23:07:26 CEST you wrote: > The eq? predicate is able to distinguish the three. But I think using a > singleton record is best: > > (define-record-type (<nil> nil? make-nil)) > (define nil (make-nil)) > > and thene export njil and nil? but not <i>ni> or make-nil.
- Re: A value for "nothin... John Cowan
- Re: A value for "nothin... Mark H Weaver
- Re: A value for "nothin... Mark H Weaver
- Re: A value for "nothin... John Cowan
- Re: A value for "nothin... Mark H Weaver
- Re: A value for "nothin... Mark H Weaver
- Re: A value for "nothing" Panicz Maciej Godek
- Re: A value for "nothing" tomas
- Re: A value for "nothing" Panicz Maciej Godek
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" Ludovic Courtès
- Re: A value for "nothing" Mark H Weaver
- Re: A value for "nothing" Ludovic Courtès
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" John Cowan
- Re: A value for "nothing" HiPhish
- Re: A value for "nothing" Keith Wright
