El vie., 19 abr. 2019 a las 13:25, Henning Sato von Rosen (< henning.von.ro...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> ... > > 1. *Non-existence expressed by omisson of keyword.* Non-existence of a > value in a key/value-pair must be expressed by omission of the whole > key/value pair, not by `null` as a value. > ... > > Just to add that I understand null should be interpreted as "I don't know the value", and not as the non-existance of a value. "I don't know" is a superset that includes the non-existance. In that sense, omitting the keyword could be interpreted as "I don't know" instead of "omission" only. Yet, not sure if it was Ritchie intention. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
