On 01/15/2013 11:48 AM, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
There actually is a standardized value for "no value" in clojure: nil
The reason it's not useable as such in some places, is exactly it being
standardized.
Were we to introduce another such non-value, e.g. #<blackhole>, I think the
following would happen:
- people would be horribly confused on whether to use nil or #<blackhole>, and
rightfully so
- additional interop issues would be created, since you never know if you have to
expect nil, #<blackhole> or both
- it would help no one, since you still have to create custom values for
domain-specific nils, that have to be
distinguishable from nil or #<blackhole>
Effectively you are proposing a third 'falsey' value apart from false and nil
which would get us into the same mess as
js with undefined vs null.
Except the stereotypical clojure dev would pull her hair out over this, while
the stereotypical js dev doesn't care and
can't afford to, they even have 0 == false and "" == false.
This point it well taken. You should be thankful if you don't have to deal in the world of health care records where
there are something like a dozen different null "flavors." Behold!
http://phinvads.cdc.gov/vads/ViewValueSet.action?id=A0D34BBC-617F-DD11-B38D-00188B398520
KISS
StanD.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
