Maybe package (was Re: blah blah blah can't hear you)

Neil Madden wrote:
> I'm not attached to the names 
> -- they're just symbols. I'll bring out a new version with the 
> constructors changed (version 2 already!). What would you prefer? I 
> quite like Some x | None for the symmetry, but could go for NULL | Value 
> x or something like that. I've no idea what to call the package/ensemble 
> though - "optional", "nullable", "possible"... (And, should the 
> constructors be lower-case?)

Perhaps we should run a little poll ?   I like Unknown/Value or 
Nothing/Value. But on second thought, if it's part of a larger package 
with Haskell-inspired constructs, then maybe (pun intended) we should 
keep the original names.

> I've been meaning to polish off this 
> package collection, matching struct::* APIs where possible, and 
> providing efficient optional C/Critcl implementations.

Take a look at Odyce (http://wiki.tcl.tk/20086). Currently it is only 
part of the eTcl distrib, but the creator considers releasing it as a 
separate extension. As it's TinyCC-based, it's fully embedded and no 
existing C compiler toolchain is required on the client machine. I've 
used it successfully for my Cloverfield parser.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php