Kevin Wortman <kwortman@gmail.com> writes:

> 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? .

Lists are not a disjoint type anyway, since all but () satisfy pair?,
and () satisfies null?.

Taylan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports