[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Immutable list SRFI updated
- To: Kevin Wortman <kwortman@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Immutable list SRFI updated
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:44:11 -0400
- Cc: Scheme Specification team <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAD2CXetyBje0sgw2vNkmFsC-eegrfEi6M2=HW01t_dmGRVthqA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20140904015701.GH4855@mercury.ccil.org> <20140908133056.GB636@mercury.ccil.org> <CAD2CXev=P4bcVa-TU1woy-OjtBuwifb-SXxw_6wJqNOgdpCXXA@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAD2CXetyBje0sgw2vNkmFsC-eegrfEi6M2=HW01t_dmGRVthqA@mail.gmail.com>
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.
which is a specialization of alists; you can search the whole thing with
(don't worry about the self-signed certificate, it's safe).
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
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