Re: false [was: The "Is nil present in a table" problem}

["Paul Chakravarti" <pc000@...>]

John Belmonte writes:
> Maybe expecting tables (or the language) to support full marshaling
> out-of-the-box is too much.  There are still cases where you want some type
> associated with each field but want to allow for nil values.  For example
> field "email_address" is a string but it happens to be nil right now meaning
> it's invalid or undefined.  When you need that you're back to Rici Lake's
> table of tables technique. 
>
> -John 

I agree that this isnt a complete solution to the typing problem
however it does help with this particular problem and (IMHO)
makes the API a bit more orthogonal without much additional impact
(if we are already modifying relational operators to support 'false')
and as far as I can tell has no impact on the language semantics. 

From a pragmatic standpoint I dont see a good reason not to include
this. 

Regards, PaulC