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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Stefan Edwards scripsit:

> I guess what I'm driving at is for the standard to explain how to treat
> items that fail the above instance of
> translation into appropriate values, in some standard way.

I don't see how: the issue seems about as implementation-dependent
as anything could be.  What approach should the standard provide
for converting Plan 9 error strings into the far more common Windows/Posix
numbers from 1 to 255?  (I assume that APE has a reverse convention,
but I can't find any documentation of it online.)

-- 
"Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates.         John Cowan
You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down   cowan@x
people who still have processes running, and kill them."

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports