Kevin Wortman <kwort...@gmail.com> writes: > I am not entirely sold on using '() to represent an empty immutable > list. It feels like a shortcut, and that instead there should be > another constructor that yields a empty ilist object that is distinct > from all other objects. As it is, I'm not sure we can rightly say that > ilist is a disjoint data type, since there exists an object that > satisfies both ilist? and list? .
Lists are not a disjoint type anyway, since all but () satisfy pair?, and () satisfies null?. Taylan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
