Re: zero_type() & UNDEFINED and _typeof()

Why would someone suggest that? There's a big difference between UNDEFINED and "", ({}) etc. Someone could otoh argue that the integer 0 should be true for symmetry with those values. But that'd require that a nil value is added, for starters. Even then, I'm a bit too damaged by C to like that.

/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS

Previous text:

2003-01-23 00:48: Subject: Re: zero_type() & UNDEFINED and _typeof()

---

It would be quite unpikish to introduce values that are "false" but != 0. Three seconds after you implement that, someone will suggest that empty strings, mappings and arrays should also be "false".

/ Niels Möller ()