Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Shawn Rutledge wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fortunately, Chicken Literary and his friends visited the fox, Henry Baker, who reminded them that their stacks are GC'd frequently. All was well again in Chicken Literary Land! But when he added that function-calls never return, Chicken Literary and friends lapsed into an existential stupor. And Henry the Fox ate them. You handled the continuation very well, congratulations. Not a very happy ending though. After (eat ...) I suppose the return value is undefined, isn't it... nah, its not undefined. there is no return value, remember? and the continuation is clearly 'eat -> burp -> digest' -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fortunately, Chicken Literary and his friends visited the fox, Henry > Baker, who reminded them that their stacks are GC'd frequently. All > was well again in Chicken Literary Land! > > But when he added that function-calls never return, Chicken Literary > and friends lapsed into an existential stupor. And Henry the Fox ate > them. You handled the continuation very well, congratulations. Not a very happy ending though. After (eat ...) I suppose the return value is undefined, isn't it... ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chicken Literary is all in a panic that the stacks are falling. lol! Fortunately, Chicken Literary and his friends visited the fox, Henry Baker, who reminded them that their stacks are GC'd frequently. All was well again in Chicken Literary Land! But when he added that function-calls never return, Chicken Literary and friends lapsed into an existential stupor. And Henry the Fox ate them. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
Chicken Literary is all in a panic that the stacks are falling. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Sun, 1 Mar 2008, Graham Fawcett wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: heh, thats the longest response ive ever gotten to a random selection from the tao of programming. cool :) Yes. Beautiful work there, John. Graham Nice, nice, very nice, Nice, nice, very nice, Nice, nice, very nice, So many different hackers in the same device. -- "The Book of Bokonon" for Unix (work in progress ;-) Hehehe... The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon for Unix, or What Can A Thoughtful Man Hope For Computing on Earth, Given The Experience Of The Past Nine Decades? - Almost nothing. -elf see the elf? see the cradle? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > heh, thats the longest response ive ever gotten to a random selection from > the tao of programming. cool :) Yes. Beautiful work there, John. Graham Nice, nice, very nice, Nice, nice, very nice, Nice, nice, very nice, So many different hackers in the same device. -- "The Book of Bokonon" for Unix (work in progress ;-) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
heh, thats the longest response ive ever gotten to a random selection from the tao of programming. cool :) -elf On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, John Cowan wrote: Elf scripsit: The wise programmer is told about the Tao and follows it. The average programmer is told about the Tao and searches for it. The foolish programmer is told about the Tao and laughs at it. [snip] Thoughtful hackers hear about Unix and try to use it. Ordinary hackers hear about Unix and mess about with it a little. Thoughtless hackers hear about Unix and crack wise about it. It wouldn't be Unix if there weren't wisecracks about it. So we establish the following rules: The most brilliant Unix seems the most obscure. Advanced Unix seems like retrocomputing. The most powerful code seems like just loops and conditionals. The clearest code seems to be opaque. The sharpest tools seem inadequate. Solid code seems flaky. Stable code seems to change. Great methodologies don't have boundaries. Great talent doesn't code fast. Great music makes no sound. The ideal elephant has no shape. The Unix Way has no name. Yet for just this reason it brings things to perfection. See more like this at http://ccil.org/~cowan/upc . ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
Elf scripsit: > The wise programmer is told about the Tao and follows it. > The average programmer is told about the Tao and searches for it. > The foolish programmer is told about the Tao and laughs at it. [snip] Thoughtful hackers hear about Unix and try to use it. Ordinary hackers hear about Unix and mess about with it a little. Thoughtless hackers hear about Unix and crack wise about it. It wouldn't be Unix if there weren't wisecracks about it. So we establish the following rules: The most brilliant Unix seems the most obscure. Advanced Unix seems like retrocomputing. The most powerful code seems like just loops and conditionals. The clearest code seems to be opaque. The sharpest tools seem inadequate. Solid code seems flaky. Stable code seems to change. Great methodologies don't have boundaries. Great talent doesn't code fast. Great music makes no sound. The ideal elephant has no shape. The Unix Way has no name. Yet for just this reason it brings things to perfection. See more like this at http://ccil.org/~cowan/upc . -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! Bombadil is talking.http://ccil.org/~cowan ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
Graham The Tao that can be tested for equality with the Tao is not the true Tao. -- Chuang Tzu (paraphrased) The wise programmer is told about the Tao and follows it. The average programmer is told about the Tao and searches for it. The foolish programmer is told about the Tao and laughs at it. If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao. The highest sounds are the hardest to hear. Going forward is a way to retreat. Greater talent shows itself late in life. Even a perfect program still has bugs. -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Ozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How is (sql-null?) harder or less intuitive? > It's not harder, but not being able to use null? to test for NULL is > counterintuitive in my eyes. I know what you're saying. I guess I just like to keep my different types of nulls in different baskets. > Count me as on the fence I guess, between null void and sql-null. Sitting on the fence between null and void sounds like a scary place to be. :-) Graham The Tao that can be tested for equality with the Tao is not the true Tao. -- Chuang Tzu (paraphrased) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
Vectors are currently used in the Postgres egg to represent date-time values. Not saying it's good, but there it is. (BTW, a dbapi needs consistent date/time support too...) In Common Lisp, NIL is the same as '(), and both mean "false". In Scheme we have an explicit #f. For the same reasons we should have an explicit #. It is important that (sql-null? (sql-null)) is #t, and (sql-null? anything-else) is #f. Since SQL NULL values are common, I really like the simple null? test. It's intuitive. How is (sql-null?) harder or less intuitive? It's not harder, but not being able to use null? to test for NULL is counterintuitive in my eyes. Count me as on the fence I guess, between null void and sql-null. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Ozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Three that I can think of: > > > > 1) It would make alist representations ugly: > > (query "select foo, NULL as bar, baz from stuff") => > > ((foo . 1) (bar) (baz . "a string")) > > This doesn't bother me. > > > 2) It is not a disjoint type. (list? '()) => #t. That's bad. > > > > 3) As a special case of (2), some databases have array-type columns. > > An empty list may be a valid column value. > > All right, there's the big problem. > > How about keeping '() for sql NULL, and using vectors to represent array-type > columns? Vectors are currently used in the Postgres egg to represent date-time values. Not saying it's good, but there it is. (BTW, a dbapi needs consistent date/time support too...) In Common Lisp, NIL is the same as '(), and both mean "false". In Scheme we have an explicit #f. For the same reasons we should have an explicit #. It is important that (sql-null? (sql-null)) is #t, and (sql-null? anything-else) is #f. > Since SQL NULL values are common, I really like the simple null? test. It's > intuitive. How is (sql-null?) harder or less intuitive? > On the other hand, I didn't even know array-type columns existed until > tonight. > I'd prefer to go with something slightly less intuitive for representing > them if > it will let us use '() for NULL. ...and perhaps we should use '() for #f as well? ;-) Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
Three that I can think of: 1) It would make alist representations ugly: (query "select foo, NULL as bar, baz from stuff") => ((foo . 1) (bar) (baz . "a string")) This doesn't bother me. 2) It is not a disjoint type. (list? '()) => #t. That's bad. 3) As a special case of (2), some databases have array-type columns. An empty list may be a valid column value. All right, there's the big problem. How about keeping '() for sql NULL, and using vectors to represent array-type columns? Since SQL NULL values are common, I really like the simple null? test. It's intuitive. On the other hand, I didn't even know array-type columns existed until tonight. I'd prefer to go with something slightly less intuitive for representing them if it will let us use '() for NULL. Thoughts? Personally, I'm okay with (void), though Vincent's comment about displaying results is a good one. I think the only logical alternative to (void) is a # value, similar in implementation to #: a disjoint type plus a predicate. (Currently that's how the postgresql egg handles it.) Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
On 2008 Feb 27, at 17:20, Graham Fawcett wrote: The point is that any Scheme that can define records can define (void), so there's nothing non-standard about it. Indeed, just as there's nothing non-standard about creating a new sql-null-object type. I would argue that most people would think of void as meaning not `unspecified' but `no value'. So a list whose car is not a value seems like an odd thing. So I am now officially endorsing the sql-null-object type as my choice. -- v ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Jeremy Sydik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thinking more about it, I'm leaning MORE toward '() than before. I > also like relying > on a representation that's "standard" scheme rather than one that's > specifically part > of Chicken if we have the choice (and we do) There's nothing particularly non-standard about (void). (void) returns a value #, whose type is disjoint from all other types, e.g. ((disjoin list? number? string? symbol? boolean?) (void)) constantly returns #f. It ain't nothing but void, and that's an important quality for a value that is supposed to represent the absence of a value. This is also why '() is a bad idea. R5RS doesn't guarantee or forbid the creation of disjoint types, but every practical Scheme depends upon it. For example, for a Scheme to be able to support SRFI-9, the "record-types SRFI", it must be able to define disjoint types. The point is that any Scheme that can define records can define (void), so there's nothing non-standard about it. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Ozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suggest that a row be an a-list, and that null columns be represented > > by being non-existent in the a-list. If you end up preferring a plain > > list or a vector, then use (void) instead -- I am trying to get this > > standardized as the Chicken representation of SQL's NULL. > > Is there an argument against using '() instead of (void) SQL NULL values? Three that I can think of: 1) It would make alist representations ugly: (query "select foo, NULL as bar, baz from stuff") => ((foo . 1) (bar) (baz . "a string")) 2) It is not a disjoint type. (list? '()) => #t. That's bad. 3) As a special case of (2), some databases have array-type columns. An empty list may be a valid column value. Personally, I'm okay with (void), though Vincent's comment about displaying results is a good one. I think the only logical alternative to (void) is a # value, similar in implementation to #: a disjoint type plus a predicate. (Currently that's how the postgresql egg handles it.) Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
Thinking more about it, I'm leaning MORE toward '() than before. I also like relying on a representation that's "standard" scheme rather than one that's specifically part of Chicken if we have the choice (and we do) On Feb 27, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Ozzi wrote: I suggest that a row be an a-list, and that null columns be represented by being non-existent in the a-list. If you end up preferring a plain list or a vector, then use (void) instead -- I am trying to get this standardized as the Chicken representation of SQL's NULL. Is there an argument against using '() instead of (void) SQL NULL values? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)
I suggest that a row be an a-list, and that null columns be represented by being non-existent in the a-list. If you end up preferring a plain list or a vector, then use (void) instead -- I am trying to get this standardized as the Chicken representation of SQL's NULL. Is there an argument against using '() instead of (void) SQL NULL values? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
