On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:04:52PM +0200, Meta wrote: > On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 19:59:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >...because it eliminates an unnecessary distinction between an > >empty sequence and a non-existent sequence (which then leads to > >similar issues one encounters with null pointers). > > That just seems silly. Surely we all recognize that there's a > difference between the empty set and having no set at all, and that > it's valuable to be able to distinguish between the two. The empty > set is still a set, while nothing is... nothing.
Yes, but if you declare a variable to contain a set, then by definition there is *something*, even if it's an empty set. For there to be nothing, there shouldn't even be a variable in the first place. The fact that the variable exists and has an identifer means that there is *something*. So your argument is moot. T -- Computers shouldn't beep through the keyhole.
