Re: [Chicken-users] coops

[Christian Kellermann]

* address@hidden <address@hidden> [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