[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] coops

From: Christian Kellermann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:48:47 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

* 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

So, suggestions?

Kind regards,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]