[e-lang] Count of complex guards
tribble at e-dean.com
Tue Jan 4 11:41:12 EST 2005
Mark Miller wrote:
>> nullOK[foo] doesn't work
> What do you mean, "doesn't work"? It doesn't work computationally? Or
> it doesn't read well? If the latter, well, after being corrupted a bit
> by ML, I've considered
I'm glad you didn't see it either. The "K" is capitalized, so it
doesn't name a guard.
> It's more declarative perhaps, but its operational meaning is less
> clear. It also doesn't mean what it means in ML, since the non-null
> case doesn't need to be unwrapped. I'm inclined to stick with nullOk.
I thought of proposing "optional", but that usually means that the arg
doesn't need to be present at all, which is not what we mean here.
> > Yup (that was easier than I expected :-)
> Much. We can't possibly be converging this quickly. We must be
> misunderstanding each other. ;)
More information about the e-lang