Christophe Rhodes  <csr21@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
+---------------
| gat@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
| > BTW, one way to resolve this dispute is to change the standard (don't
| > shoot me!) to stipulate that (upgraded-array-element-type nil) can be
| > NULL, notwithstanding the rules that currently prohibit this from
| > happening.
| 
| Well, that might be one way of doing it, though I'd like to know why
| you want to mandate that every implementation have arrays specialized
| to hold objects of the NULL type.  A better solution might be to make
| an exception for the empty type: that is, to specify that it upgrades
| to BIT.
+---------------

Oh, you mean the way CMUCL[1] does?  ;-}  ;-}

	cmucl> (upgraded-array-element-type nil)
	BIT
	cmucl> 


-Rob

[1] cmucl-18e, if it matters.

-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA		<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607