[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 86 10:13 EST
I still think the right thing to do is to make (type-of <function>)
return a type signature for the function. Then the user's program can
conclude whatever it wants. If an implementation can do this, then it
can certainly do what is required below, and other things too,
depending on how specific the type signature is. I proposed this last
week sometime, and I saw only minimal feedback (which was positive).
Are there any good reasons why the type system isn't the right place
to garner this information?
Doesn't this conflict with the possibility of (type-of <function>) telling
you whether it's an interpreted or compiled function, and whether it's
a closure or not, and (in some systems) whether it's generic or not?
Or, as CLtL says, "(type-of object) returns an implementation-dependent