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

[John Cowan]

felix winkelmann scripsit:

> >  No, we realize that just as we need only one empty list (unlike Java, where
> >  any list can have zero elements without losing its identity), we need only
> >  one object that has:
> >
> >         a unique identity, disjoint from all other objects
> >         a unique type, disjoint from all other types
> >         no information inside it
> >
> 
> Why do we need this? I can't remember right now...

To represent the null object of foreign environments that do not conflate
null with the empty sequence -- not only SQL but also Lua, Java (and
other JVM languages), .NET, and others.

While this is an additional immediate object, it's only *one* additional
immediate object.  I support it.

-- 
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim  John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust?   address@hidden
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
        --George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar