[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] strange language in spec of `and' and `or'
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] strange language in spec of `and' and `or'
- From: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:35:00 -0400
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Organization: Indiana University
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <BANLkTikmfo8gjN-GT7LfXp3ty2GEj0OcFA@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com>
On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:19:17 -0400, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote:
> On Thu 19 May 2011 18:51, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> writes:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote:
>>> Section 4.2.1, p. 11, in the spec of `and':
>>> "The TEST expressions are evaluated from left to right, and the value
>>> of the first expression that evaluates to a false value (see section
>>> 6.3.1) is returned. Any remaining expressions are not evaluated. If
>>> all the expressions evaluate to true values, the value of the last
>>> expression is returned..."
>>> Why these weasel words? Is this to somehow permit implementations with
>>> more than one false value to return a false value from `and' which is
>>> not #f ?
>> Good point, that's possibly wording left over from
>> R4RS, where #f and '() were not necessarily distinct.
>> #f and '() could be distinct and yet there could be
>> other false values (as in Guile, no?), but I'm not
>> sure if we need to word the standard to accomodate
>> such extensions.
> Yes Guile does have a #nil which is false; but in this case the report
> seems to be over-specifying (i.e. (and #nil #t) returning #nil instead
> of #f).
> Dunno. My suggestion would be to worry about Scheme; people with a
> "nil" in their language have other problems ;-)
I suggest we take up the R6RS wording in this regard, which is rather
clear. Filed ticket #188.
Aaron W. Hsu
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
Scheme-reports mailing list