chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] DBI


From: felix winkelmann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] DBI
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:41:57 +0100

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Graham Fawcett
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
>  It would be a smart idea to change the implementation, then, so that
>  the unspecified value could not be tested with (eq?). That would
>  prevent it from being 'misused'.

The unspecified value is unspecified. It has both no identity and
no efforts are made to make it identity-less.

>
>  There does seem to be a good case for an immediate value that *can* be
>  tested this way, though. John et. al. wouldn't have used (void) in
>  eggs if there weren't. Record instances aren't really a great answer
>  (though I suggested them myself) since different records of the same
>  type will fail an identity test.

Unless you use a single unique instance.


cheers,
felix




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]