[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

All arrays can be adjustable?

To: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu
Subject: All arrays can be adjustable?
From: Don Morrison <dfm@jasper.palladian.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 87 15:20 EDT
Cc: navajo!DLA%DIAMOND.S4CC.Symbolics.COM@navajo.stanford.edu, navajo!sandra%orion%cs.utah.edu@navajo.stanford.edu, navajo!common-lisp%sail@navajo.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: <8705210545.AA03359@bhopal.edsel.uucp>
Reply-to: Don Morrison <DFM%JASPER@live-oak.lcs.mit.edu>

    Date: Wed, 20 May 87 22:45:04 PDT
    From: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu (Jon L White)

    See CLtL page 34 where simple-array is defined as a subtype of array.
    Note also that everywhere "subtype" is used, it means "proper subtype".  

CLtL, page 33: "If x is a supertype of y, then any object of type y is also of type x,
and y is said to be a subtype of x."  Doesn't sound like "proper subtype" to me.
Also, in both Symbolics and Lucid, (subtypep x x) => t for every type I tried.

Follow-Ups:
- All arrays can be adjustable?
  - From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>

References:
- All arrays can be adjustable?
  - From: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu (Jon L White)

Prev by Date: :fill-pointer maybe
Next by Date: Re: Order of evaluation in PUSH (& PUSHNEW)
Previous by thread: All arrays can be adjustable?
Next by thread: All arrays can be adjustable?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread