Re: [qs-dev] Polymorphic Accessor

[Tyson D. <ty...@ty...>]

On 24-Jan-2001, Ina Cheng <in...@st...> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Tyson Dowd wrote:
> 
> > I think we might be better off using a Union schema to represent
> > unions of constructors (e.g. list = union(nil/0, cons/2).  And we should
> > use the same schema as a struct for each of the constructors.
>  
> This is actually what I'm working on for struct this morning, can you please 
> take a look whether this is right or wrong? Thanks.

That looks fine to me.

"right" or "wrong" is a bit more difficult -- it implies that I
know what the answer is -- I don't, but I think this looks like a good
approach.

-- 
       Tyson Dowd           # 
                            #  Surreal humour isn't everyone's cup of fur.
     tr...@cs...        # 
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~trd #