Re: [Chicken-users] coops

[Felix]

From: Christian Kellermann <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] coops
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:48:47 +0100

> * 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.

In Common Lisp and Dylan, pairs are subclasses of list, btw.


cheers,
felix