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
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-c
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
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
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,
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
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.
Th
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 abo
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 i
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 n
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 sh
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
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 h
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
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
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
> > sta
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,
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 again
18 matches
Mail list logo
