On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:21:32AM -0400, Felix wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:25:12AM -0400, Felix wrote: > >> > I was wondering what use does (null-pointer?) has. > >> > >> Historical. I will deprecate. > > > > Thanks, Felix. I noticed the documentation says > > "Another way to say (address->pointer 0)". Should the address->pointer > > procedure return #f when given 0? > > No, otherwise you couldn't create a pointer object containing a NULL > pointer... :-) I think we can expect a user to be able to code this.
I understand that this wouldn't be possible. But what is the reason this has to be possible, considering null pointers are represented as #f everywhere else? For consistency it would make sense to return #f here too, but of course you could also argue that it would be more consistent to always return a pointer... Ah well Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
