On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've tended to let null be '(), but that partly comes from liking the > > look of > > (null? (alist-ref 'field result)) I'm not entirely comfortable with > > leaving the > > value entirely absent simply because the mapping I mention to value > > lists and vectors becomes more problematic. That said, my usage of > > value lists and vectors is limited enough that I'm not that tied to it > > either. > > Can you even check for void? Afaik there's no VOID? procedure.
You can; just compare with another (void) value: (define void? (cute eq? (void) <>)) Graham _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
