Pardon me for mentioning ML. Yes, Jim Morris suggested ADTs without using the 
name and the Clu people in their paper on infinitely high-level languages 
(yeap!) introduced the terms. That doesn't change a thing about the content of 
my statement. 



On Aug 2, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:

> ADTs have nothing to do with ML.  They're an older and basic computer
> science concept.
> 
> So why do you have an opaque require?  Just on simple duality grounds
> you should have both or neither.
> 
> Shriram

_________________________________________________
  For list-related administrative tasks:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to