On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 21:15:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
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
I was simply thinking about sdl where you pass in a rect for the
coords to blt one surface to the other. Null/0 means copy the
whole thing. Rect is an object but I was thinking what about
arrays (empty VS pull a default somewhere). Thats how I came up
with this question and the point is I WANT to NOT specify a value
so a DYNAMIC SUITABLE default value can be used.
