Re: [Chicken-hackers] deprecation of always?, never?, none?

[John Cowan]

Felix scripsit:

> Would anybody be very unhappy if "always?", "none?" and "never?" (unit
> data-structures) get deprecated? They can be trivially defined using
> "constantly". The situation for "any?" is different IMHO, since it
> directly corresponds to a type.

If "any?" corresponds to a type, the universal type at the top of
a type lattice, then "none?" also corresponds to a type, the null
type at the bottom of the type lattice.  But I agree that these are
completely trivial, and what's more the distinction between any?/none?
(one argument) and always?/never? (arbitrary number of arguments) is not
so easy to remember.

Flush all four.

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  address@hidden
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie