Re: [pure-lang-users] null

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 21:27 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Albert Graef scripsit:
> 
> > It's null for Haskell compatibility. I think it's been called null in Q
> > already for a long time, maybe even going back to Bird/Wadler ed. 1
> > which Q's notation was originally based on. And Lisp uses 'null', too.

OK. I just have to quite making that mistake.

> Scheme's Great Renaming did go with "null?" though.  Kind of a pity, I think,
> that you don't allow ? as an identifier character (at least at the end);
> that way all predicates could uniformly use it.
> 

And don't forget the ! at the end of all mutable procedures. That is one
nice thing about using white space to separate parameters - you can use
almost anything you want for naming of procedures like using -> in the
middle of conversion procedures string->number, number->string,
list->vector, etc. Trade offs, Trade offs, ...

e.r.