[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)
Alan Watson scripsit:
> Formal Comment
Ticket #372 filed for the Formal Comment; ticket #373 filed for the change.
I support this proposal.
Stefan Edwards scripsit:
> Should it perhaps be similar to what is defined in section 6.3 (i.e.
> similar to if's <Test>)?
> " Of all the Scheme values, only #f counts as false in condi- tional
> expressions. All other Scheme values, including #t, count as true "
> and leave it as implementation defined if the value passed to exit is
> actually returned to the OS/system below Scheme.
I don't support this, because process exit is not like Scheme truth.
In a process exit, there is only one kind of success (0 in Posix/Windows,
"" in Plan 9, 2 in VMS, etc.), whereas there are many kinds of failure.
So #t should map to conventional success, #f should map to some kind of
failure, and any other object should be (as far as possible) passed to
A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: cowan@x]
Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev]
"Your verse would be sweeter http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If it only had metre
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan." [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay
Scheme-reports mailing list