On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:45:02AM +0200, ProgrammingGhost wrote: > 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.
You could use T[]* and pass a null pointer as default? T -- What is Matter, what is Mind? Never Mind, it doesn't Matter.
