> On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote: >> Brian Kardell skrev: >>> how about :null or :void? >> Given the association of the terms, it would be a poor fit. In theory >> :null could be used in some setup to find null pointers in the DOM. And >> void is used for return values, not stating content. >> >> And then there is the actual definitions of the words in the English >> language. Null is something that no longer is. And void is something >> that is no longer applicable. >> >> In short, bad idea. > > Yeah, I disagree on all counts, but I am just one opinion and simply > offering an alternative. The reason "null" and "void" are used so > much in programming is that they have common meaning for things with > no value - "" is called "null string", zero is null or nill, etc... > What you're looking for with values in a pseudo here are fields which > contain no value... Presumably this is after a trim or whatever > validation you have. But again, that's merely something to chew on, > it doesn't surprise me if mileage and opinions vary and my feelings > aren't hurt if we have something else. Chewing. I googled "null and void" and got this: Canceled, invalid, as in The lease is now null and void. This phrase is actually redundant, since null means “void,” that is, “ineffective.” It was first recorded in 1669. The American Heritage® Idioms Dictionary. Null and void | Define Null and void at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com › browse › null...
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 19:11:07 UTC