This is the mail archive of the
kawa@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Kawa project.
Re: Class to use for lists from Java?
- To: "Nic Ferrier" <nferrier at tapsellferrier dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: Class to use for lists from Java?
- From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- Date: 21 Jan 2001 08:27:38 -0800
- Cc: kawa at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <sa6af946.004@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
"Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk> writes:
> Becaue LList is a little more abstract than that. It's a base
> LinkedList definition. Pair is the top-level linked list definition.
> Pair contains routines for the Scheme reader whilst List does not.
Pair is not the top-level linked list definition - see my previous message.
> Why can't you accept Pair for lists? That's what I do when I need
> them.
>
> LList will probably be a Pair so there's no difference except Pair
> gives you that little bit extra functionality.
>
> (One of the biggest things wrong with Pair is that it's not called
> LList).
That is wrong - as I hope my previous message makes clear.
Scheme pairs are represented using Pair.
Scheme lists are represented using LList.
LList == Pair + LList.Empty (the empty list).
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/