Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:26:05 -0000
Message-ID: <1188228365.294250.282480_at_q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:26:05 -0000
Message-ID: <1188228365.294250.282480_at_q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 27, 7:20 am, "V.J. Kumar" <vjkm..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whenever we have def(x), any formula
> will evaluate to 'false'.
I'm not sure if you're just typing too fast and leaving stuff out or what.
In the proposed construct, it cannot be said what def(x):f(x)
evaluates to without knowing at least whether x is defined
or not, and if it is, further knowing what f is.
You have to know those things before you can say what it
evaluates to. The construct is not a new way to write "false"
or anything like that.
Marshall