[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A value for "nothing"
From: |
HiPhish |
Subject: |
Re: A value for "nothing" |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:24:26 +0200 |
Yes, this sounds like the best solution so far.
On Sonntag, 26. August 2018 23:07:26 CEST you wrote:
> The eq? predicate is able to distinguish the three. But I think using a
> singleton record is best:
>
> (define-record-type (<nil> nil? make-nil))
> (define nil (make-nil))
>
> and thene export njil and nil? but not <i>ni> or make-nil.
- Re: A value for "nothing", (continued)
- Re: A value for "nothing", John Cowan, 2018/08/28
- Re: A value for "nothing", Mark H Weaver, 2018/08/28
- Re: A value for "nothing", Mark H Weaver, 2018/08/28
- Re: A value for "nothing", John Cowan, 2018/08/28
- Re: A value for "nothing", Mark H Weaver, 2018/08/28
- Re: A value for "nothing", Mark H Weaver, 2018/08/28
Re: A value for "nothing", Panicz Maciej Godek, 2018/08/26
Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: A value for "nothing",
HiPhish <=
Message not available
Re: A value for "nothing", HiPhish, 2018/08/26