Re: feature/type-hierarchy 8a63e50036f 1/5: * Define 'cl--type-hierarchy' and compute 'cl--typeof-types' from it

[Andrea Corallo]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>>> +    (symbol-with-pos keyword))
>> Can't we have keyword that is a symbol-with-pos as well?
>
> I'm not sure (it depends if we agree that a `symbol-with-pos` is also
> a `symbol`.   In practice it presumably depends on the value of
> `symbols-with-pos-enabled` 🙁),

I *think* (thought at this point?) symbols-with-pos are symbols 🤷.

> but I know that not all
> `symbol-with-pos`s are `keyword`s.

How do you think this should be expressed in the DAG?  I thought this
was the correct way but I can indeed be wrong.

>
>         Stefan "who thinks he would prefer that `symbols-with-pos-enabled`
>                 only affects the behavior of `eq`"

Could you explain why you think `symbols-with-pos-enabled` should
influence our type hierarchy?

Thanks

  Andrea