W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Repost issue: missing accessors same as NILs?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:31:09 +0100 (CET)
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201181822230.32025-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 IMHO "no value is known" is covered by "default" because the 
application can choose to treat missing data as unknown if it 
can choose the default.
 This narrative may not be easily mapped into programming 
languages, I understand, but then I'm for the equality of NILs 
and omissions because I'm of the opinion that NILs were created 
exactly for the purpose of defaulting or not specifying data.
 Best regards, 

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Rich Salz wrote:

 > Your note [1] left out one alternative -- "no value is known," or
 > unspecified.  For example, in C:
 >          extern char *cstr;
 >          char *p = (char*)malloc(1 + strlen(cstr) + 1);
 >          strcpy(&p[1], cstr);
 > The value of p[0] is indeterminate/unspecified, not necessarily NULL and
 > not guaranteed to have a default value.
 > This is (surprise) just like sparse arrays. :)
 > Did you omit that option on purpose?
 >          /r$
 > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0057.html
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 12:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC