I am not entirely sold on using '() to represent an empty immutable list. It feels like a shortcut, and that instead there should be another constructor that yields a empty ilist object that is distinct from all other objects. As it is, I'm not sure we can rightly say that ilist is a disjoint data type, since there exists an object that satisfies both ilist? and list? .
Best regards, Kevin Wortman On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > John Cowan scripsit: > > > I've updated the new immutable list (pre-)SRFI in place: > > > > http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/srfi-116.html > > http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/ilists.tar.gz > > Updated yet again, and withdrawn from Dropbox to avoid confusion. Mike > Sperber is looking over the spec now, and has already suggested that the > rationale needs extension, so that's the main thing I've done. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] > Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers > Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; > Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is > Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports >
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
