Hallo, Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
I just find the disappearing or changing meaning of "0" confusing.
What have you ever used that meaning for?
Well, for making sure, that unpack will give a number at that outlet or nothing there at all.
I think, the usefulness, type-checking can have, is obvious, otherwise we wouldn't have C. Of course, sometimes it's a pain, otherwise we wouldn't have other languages.
But to illustrate where the type-checking of [unpack] is useful, see attached patch: If I have an [unpack 0 0 0] in my patch, and after that some math calculations on numbers, then if a symbol message reaches the [unpack 0 0 0], for years now I *know* that the error in my patch has to be somewhere before that unpack. This makes looking for the bug a bit easier and I admit: I'm used to this behaviour of unpack.
Of course sometimes a type-less "unpack"-operation is useful as well, but all I'm suggesting is that this should be made in a different object like the proposed [list unpack] and not in [unpack] itself. Your insistence on changing [unpack] itself is what I cannot understand.
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__