Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)

[Stefan Edwards <saedwards.ecc@x>]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

Stefan Edwards scripsit:

> "For any value that does not map to an operating system acceptable
> exit value, and is not a boolean, it is the recommendation of this
> report to treat it as a true conditional, for purposes of creating an
> exit value."

But that would be almost the reverse of the programmer's likely intent.
Whether it's (exit "bad arguments") on Windows or (exit 1) on Plan 9,
the intention of a random argument is almost certainly failure rather
than success, because as I said there is only one kind of success and
many kinds of failure.  So if anything uninterpretable arguments should
be mapped to #f.

I could agree to that as well; I thought about mapping it to #f initially, but went with #t to stick to 6.3, but this sounds

acceptable to me as well. 

--
One Word to write them all,             John Cowan <cowan@x>
 One Access to find them,              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
One Excel to count them all,
 And thus to Windows bind them.                --Mike Champion

-- 
====
Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. No.
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports