Thank you, Christian.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:36 PM Christian Kellermann
wrote:
> * Paul Sika [181210 13:27]:
> > hi Thomas,
> > thank you very much. it is indeed clear from your explanation. it is
> about
> > the cons cells.
> >
> > But i must say that at the back of the mind it feels like
* Paul Sika [181210 13:27]:
> hi Thomas,
> thank you very much. it is indeed clear from your explanation. it is about
> the cons cells.
>
> But i must say that at the back of the mind it feels like it should not
> satisfy pair? because there are 3 elements in the list.
Well, it satisfies pair?
hi Thomas,
thank you very much. it is indeed clear from your explanation. it is about
the cons cells.
But i must say that at the back of the mind it feels like it should not
satisfy pair? because there are 3 elements in the list.
That said, I shall keep learning :-)
thanks again, Thomas.
On
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:48:56 + Paul Sika wrote:
> [...]
> I am trying a scheme tutorial using the chicken repl and i see that
> (pair? '(1 2 3)) yields true.
> is this normal ?
> [...]
Hello Paul,
yes, this is perfectly normal: Every non-empty list satisfies the pair?
predicate because
Hello,
I am trying a scheme tutorial using the chicken repl and i see that
(pair? '(1 2 3)) yields true.
is this normal ?
if yes could you please explain why?
thanks
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
