[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
All arrays can be adjustable?
- To: DFM%JASPER@live-oak.lcs.mit.edu, edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu
- Subject: All arrays can be adjustable?
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 87 10:26 EDT
- Cc: navajo!DLA%DIAMOND.S4CC.Symbolics.COM@navajo.stanford.edu, navajo!sandra%orion%cs.utah.edu@navajo.stanford.edu, common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <870521152017.2.DFM@WHITBY.PALLADIAN.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 May 87 15:20 EDT
From: Don Morrison <dfm@jasper.palladian.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 22:45:04 PDT
From: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu (Jon L White)
See CLtL page 34 where simple-array is defined as a subtype of array.
Note also that everywhere "subtype" is used, it means "proper subtype".
CLtL, page 33: "If x is a supertype of y, then any object of type y is also of type x,
and y is said to be a subtype of x." Doesn't sound like "proper subtype" to me.
Also, in both Symbolics and Lucid, (subtypep x x) => t for every type I tried.
CLTL page 72: "This predicate [subtypep] is true if type1 is a (not
necessarily proper) subtype of type2."
--Guy