Re: Weakness of "non-object" types

Show/hide message thread

Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (04 Dec 2015 10:51 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types Takashi Kato (04 Dec 2015 12:28 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (04 Dec 2015 12:54 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types Takashi Kato (04 Dec 2015 14:27 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (04 Dec 2015 16:51 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types John Cowan (04 Dec 2015 15:12 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (04 Dec 2015 16:41 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types John Cowan (05 Dec 2015 07:15 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (05 Dec 2015 12:50 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types John Cowan (06 Dec 2015 04:41 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (06 Dec 2015 10:21 UTC)

Re: Weakness of "non-object" types taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 06 Dec 2015 10:21 UTC

John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:
>
>>     Booleans, characters, numbers, symbols, and the empty list are
>>     encouraged, but not required, to never be stored weakly or
>>     ephemerally.
>
> s/encouraged/recommended/; it's an RFC 2119 magic word, equivalent to
> "should", as "required" is equivalent to "must".

Done, thanks.

Taylan