[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: DLW@alderaan.scrc.symbolics.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: TYPE-OF
- From: Guy Steele <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 15:16 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <861120133433.3.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
One might want (TYPE-OF 2) => (INTEGER 2 2), or perhaps just (INTEGER 2)
and define (INTEGER x) <=> (integer x x). But this does not seem to
generalize nicely to other data types.
If the goal is that TYPE-OF should return the most specific possible
type, then clearly when applied to object x it should return (MEMBER x),
as that is the most specific type that contains x. But this is not
very useful, and therefore this goal is not what we really want.
- From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>