<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Thank you Noel you're a darling!  (hope this doesn't sound too unidiomatic this time :-; )</div><div>So I'll just remove the  #:mutable temporarily and go on coding...</div><div><br></div><div>Seizing the opportunity, I'd like to ask again about my type matching problem :-;</div><div>Right now I'm doing the type matching for</div><div><br></div><div>1) types defined with define-struct: using (cond (mytype? x)...</div><div>2) type variants defined with Dave's define-datatype using (match x ((struct y (z)) ...</div><div><br></div><div>but I don't know how to test for 3) union types, nor 4) the type subsuming all those variants.</div><div>Or in fact I didn't know, because right now I've found</div><div><br></div><div>(define-predicate test? type)</div><div><br></div><div>in the documentation and it works fine for both cases.</div><div>So perhaps I'm overdoing it here, but I wonder is this bad style (or aesthetically unpleasing, somehow), using 3 different ways to match types (and in one case, even defining a custom predicate)?</div><div>Would there be another, more consistent way to do this (or would you say it's not really something to worry about)? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>If your email address did not end ".de" I would swear you were English.</div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div>That's nice to hear, but I don't quite believe it :-;</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again, ciao,</div><div>Sigrid</div><div><br></div></body></html>