Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Shawn Rutledge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chicken Literary is all in a panic that the stacks are falling. lol! Fortunately, Chicken Literary and his friends visited the fox, Henry Baker, who reminded them that their stacks are GC'd frequently. All was well again in Chicken Literary Land! But when he added that function-calls never return, Chicken Literary and friends lapsed into an existential stupor. And Henry the Fox ate them. G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Graham Fawcett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fortunately, Chicken Literary and his friends visited the fox, Henry Baker, who reminded them that their stacks are GC'd frequently. All was well again in Chicken Literary Land! But when he added that function-calls never return, Chicken Literary and friends lapsed into an existential stupor. And Henry the Fox ate them. You handled the continuation very well, congratulations. Not a very happy ending though. After (eat ...) I suppose the return value is undefined, isn't it... ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: chicken literary spoofs (was: Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI))
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Shawn Rutledge wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Graham Fawcett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fortunately, Chicken Literary and his friends visited the fox, Henry Baker, who reminded them that their stacks are GC'd frequently. All was well again in Chicken Literary Land! But when he added that function-calls never return, Chicken Literary and friends lapsed into an existential stupor. And Henry the Fox ate them. You handled the continuation very well, congratulations. Not a very happy ending though. After (eat ...) I suppose the return value is undefined, isn't it... nah, its not undefined. there is no return value, remember? and the continuation is clearly 'eat - burp - digest' -elf ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
