8 Feb
2008
8 Feb
'08
11:28 a.m.
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:14 , Stefan Monnier wrote:
You seem to write 12 as 1 :+ 2 instead of () :+ 1 :+ 2. But I think, the latter representation should probably be prefered. (...) How 'bout treating :+ as similar to `append' rather than similar to `cons'? Basically treat :+ as taking 2 numbers (rather than a number and a digit).
Dumb questions department: why not define e.g. D'0 .. D'9 as () :* 0 .. () :* 9? Programmers then get D'1 :* 2, but the library sees () :* 1 :* 2.
Do you remember that they talk about types D0, D1, and so on?