gregoryyoung
Lacks symmetry
To be a well rounded Framework I suggest making it more symetrical by adding an All type. With All and Nothing it is surely a framework I would bet on.
So in terms of how this would work
Nothing All
But does All include Nothing?
Greg
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Christian Holm Diget < [email protected]> wrote:
To be a well rounded Framework I suggest making it more symetrical by adding an All type. With All and Nothing it is surely a framework I would bet on.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gregoryyoung/nothing/issues/7.
Studying for the Turing test
To enforce clear symmetry I beleive it should not be included in All. With reguard to the equality operators suggested All or Nothing should always be true though.
To enforce clear symmetry I beleive it should not be included in All. With reguard to the equality operators suggested All or Nothing should always be true though.
For symmetry Nothing should be included in All and All included in Nothing. But they aren't equal.
@dsyme but how does the Money type interact with Nothing? I mean there are even songs about money both for and from nothing ...
and on a complete side note should Nothing really have value or reference semantics?
I tried assert(nothing==deserialize(serialize(nothing))) but it has a bug that eats all my CPU untill there's nothing left.
should Nothing really have value or reference semantics?
An argument can be made that Nothing should have no semantics. Because with semantics it is surely something.