[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Empty? No. Array? No. Has? Yes.
- From: Javier Guerra Giraldez <javier@...>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:03:49 -0500
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Tim Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This worked better for me than special array properties (table.has() etc),
> as I could also pass "empty" as a function argument/return value.
this is the problem: it's quite easy to define private "empty" value
and be assured that no other module would collide with it by accident,
_but_ if you simply return it to signal emptiness, then it's no longer
private. other places have to use it, then you have to assure wide
agreement on what "empty" value to use. (and very soon you need a new
"really empty" value, and then a third, and so on).
if you keep the private "empty" really private, using it _only_ to
store emptiness, but a different "out of band" way to signal it
(.has(), .delete(), etc), then there's no need to standardize on which
"empty" is used on every module, nor any "meta emptiness" escalation,
nor any need to add new types to the language.