On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Iain Lane <email address hidden>
wrote:
> No, I was getting at the defaults thing. You called them immutable but any
> code will have to handle the empty or missing case anyway so I wonder why
> you don't make the default be empty - the current default seems kind of
> arbitrary.
True. I think my understanding of defaults is a bit too narrow. Let's
leave it out of the schema.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Iain Lane <email address hidden>
wrote:
> No, I was getting at the defaults thing. You called them immutable but any
> code will have to handle the empty or missing case anyway so I wonder why
> you don't make the default be empty - the current default seems kind of
> arbitrary.
True. I think my understanding of defaults is a bit too narrow. Let's
leave it out of the schema.