felix winkelmann scripsit: > > No, we realize that just as we need only one empty list (unlike Java, where > > any list can have zero elements without losing its identity), we need only > > one object that has: > > > > a unique identity, disjoint from all other objects > > a unique type, disjoint from all other types > > no information inside it > > > > Why do we need this? I can't remember right now...
To represent the null object of foreign environments that do not conflate null with the empty sequence -- not only SQL but also Lua, Java (and other JVM languages), .NET, and others. While this is an additional immediate object, it's only *one* additional immediate object. I support it. -- Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan "Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused. --George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
