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