Re: [Chicken-users] New immediate values (was: DBI)

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 29 Feb 2008, at 2:24 pm, John Cowan wrote:

> > Ah, but disjointness in value is all that's required...
>
> Technically yes, but most of us find predicates like number?, string?,
> and symbol? rather handy all the same,


Ah, true, I'd not thought of people using symbol? - good point.

Ok, on which grounds, I'd accept a new type: 'token', perhaps. Which
is basically a symbol but responds to token? rather than symbol?, and
also, when you define one with (define-token bob), you get (define
bob (make-token 'bob)) (define (bob? x) (eq x bob)). (and (bob? bob)
(token? bob)). However, then people start writing meta-token-code
that uses (token? ...) and we have to start from scratch with
something else. So do we make the bold move of not defining (token? x)?

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/?author=4