[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: A value for "nothing"

From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: A value for "nothing"
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 20:26:25 -0400

You're right about null? being a problem.  `Nothing` suggests an option
type.  What about 'nada' or 'nix'?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:45 PM HiPhish <address@hidden> wrote:

> 1) Huh, I didn't think this would work because the record type is already
> nil,
> but apparently it does. Good to know
> 2) `null` is bad because the predicate would be `null?`, which collides
> even
> worse with Scheme. Any other suggestions? `nothing`? `nul` with one ell? I
> think it would be too easy for people to miss that one letter and be
> confused
> why things don't work as they should. The MessagePack spec calls the type
> `nil`:
> John Cowan wrote:
> > 1) Some Schemes don't support rename on export.  Just give the procedure
> > the name you want it to have.
> >
> > 2) Please don't use nil as a name.  Many Schemers pronounce (), the
> > external representation of the empty list, as "nil".  Use null or
> something
> > else.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]