Kevin Wortman scripsit: > Sure. I guess my point is that a new data type can have either "proper > disjoint type" or "works like lists" semantics, but not both at the same > time. The SRFI document seems to be trying to have it both ways.
In a sense. I just didn't see the advantage of having a separate inull type. > I have had problems stemming from empty lists being indistinguishable from > empty alists, so I advocate making new types properly disjoint. But since > the spirit of this proposal is to be close to a drop-in alternative to SRFI > 1, "works like lists" semantics might be appropriate in this case. I think so. You might be interested in my JSO (JavaScript Objects) library, which is a specialization of alists; you can search the whole thing with assq, but it also simulates a JavaScript prototype chain. See <https://code.call-cc.org/svn/chicken-eggs/release/4/jso/trunk/jso-code.scm> (don't worry about the self-signed certificate, it's safe). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] The penguin geeks is happy / As under the waves they lark The closed-source geeks ain't happy / They sad cause they in the dark But geeks in the dark is lucky / They in for a worser treat One day when the Borg go belly-up / Guess who wind up on the street. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
