[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-users] New immediate values (was: DBI)

From: Thomas Chust
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] New immediate values (was: DBI)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:22:43 +0100

On 29. Februar 2008 21:40:40 -0500 John Cowan <address@hidden> 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

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 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...


Murphy's Law is recursive.  Washing your car to make it rain doesn't work.

reply via email to

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