Re: argument against using '() for null values? ([Chicken-users] DBI)

[Vincent Manis]

On 2008 Feb 27, at 17:20, Graham Fawcett wrote:

> The point is that any Scheme that can define records can define
> (void), so there's nothing non-standard about it.


Indeed, just as there's nothing non-standard about creating a new
sql-null-object type. I would argue that most people would think
of void as meaning not `unspecified' but `no value'. So a list
whose car is not a value seems like an odd thing. So I am now
officially endorsing the sql-null-object type as my choice.

-- v