Graham Fawcett scripsit: > For representing sql-null, the special immediate-type solution is best > because it's unambiguous. If that were ruled out, simply using the > symbol 'null -- and forbidding database layers from returning symbols > as output-values other than 'null -- would be my second choice, but > it's an inferior solution, and I have a feeling I'd regret it later.
It also doesn't scale to foreign environments other than SQL ones. > But please not '(), for the same reason not #f, 0, or an empty string. +1 > I don't want to see a circus of immediate types either, but one more > isn't horrible. I thought (void) was perfect for this, but I respect > the concerns that have been raised. So, (void) needs a brother who has > no semantic baggage. +1 -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "After all, would you consider a man without honor wealthy, even if his Dinar laid end to end would reach from here to the Temple of Toplat?" "No, I wouldn't", the beggar replied. "Why is that?" the Master asked. "A Dinar doesn't go very far these days, Master. --Kehlog Albran Besides, the Temple of Toplat is across the street." The Profit _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
