John Cowan wrote:
Thomas Lord scripsit:
In that sense, we're left arguing mostly over the names of
things and I'm on the side that says the proper name for
the imagined CHARLIKE? type is actually, gosh, CHAR?.
Ahem. Exactly.
[insert references to our fathers before us and Yang Worship Words.]
;-) Just to make sure that nothing is ever simple: I recall concluding
that *even if* one wants CHARLIKE? to not be CHAR?, there
are still some problems in the way that CHAR is constructed in 5.92.
So, it's not *entirely* that we're arguing over the names of things.
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
