On 29. Februar 2008 21:40:40 -0500 John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Chust scripsit:
[...]
Of course I don't want to have the same typing mess as in Java in
CHICKEN and I do think the whole practice of having nullable reference
types (by default) is questionable. I just don't think it is completely
canonical that the type of NULL should be disjoint from every other
type, especially if you think of types as being sets (or classes) of
objects.
I do think of types as being named sets of objects (named, because then
there are only denumerably many types).
So if you considered NULL as being a marker for the absence of any real
value, its type would be the empty set which is a subset of every other
type.
This is not the only possible interpretation of NULL, though, and whether
it is a useful one may depend on the situation ;-)
If Foo.bar is a static method this will work just fine ;-)
Yup. But did you deduce that from first principles, or had you seen
it before?
Well, the way I remembered the Java language specification it seemed
logical to me that it should work, so I tried whether it really did ;-)
Nevertheless I think it is pretty bad practice to call a static method on
an instance instead of the class itself...
cu,
Thomas
--
Murphy's Law is recursive. Washing your car to make it rain doesn't work.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
