Re: question about type specifiers
Antoniotti Marco <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.clisp.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <DB4PR04MB4753D8D299426F9FF0D6575C83E0@DB4PR04MB475.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> |
There is also CDR 5. MA Sent using OWA for iPad ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 6:42:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [clisp-list] question about type specifiers Don Cohen wrote: >(INTEGER #.MOST-NEGATIVE-FIXNUM (0)) >(INTEGER #.MOST-NEGATIVE-FIXNUM -1) You could use that one, yes. >(INTEGER #.(+ MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM 1)) 1+, 1-, how ugly. A real mathematician would likely prefer a notation Involving exclusive upper and lower bounds, and this is exactly what the extra parentheses introducing singleton lists mean. See Section 12.1.6. Interval Designators http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/12_af.htm about Compound Type Specifier Names in 4.2.3 http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/04_bc.htm MOD in CLHS still has the CLtL2 example you mention http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/t_mod.htm Regards, Jörg Höhle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ clisp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ clisp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-list