Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values"

[Andre van Tonder <andre@x>]

On Fri, 20 May 2011, John Cowan wrote:

> Andre van Tonder scripsit:
>
>> I think that if R7RS wishes to go to the trouble of reintroducing this
>> rather useless restriction, it will need to accompany it by some very
>> strong justification.
>
> You are mistaken.  The only thing the WG1 charter (our constitution; we
> didn't choose it) has to say about R6RS is this:
>
>     Insofar as practical, the language should be backwards compatible
>     with the IEEE standard, the R5RS standard, and an appropriate
>     subset of the R6RS standard.
>
> Note the significant ordering of the terms.  When R6RS differs from
> R5RS, we need a justification to adopt R6RS, not vice versa.

Okay, but these unspecified return values did not even make sense in R5RS.  Once 
multiple return values became part of Scheme, there was no reason for keeping 
them, apart from backward compatibility.  But they were a wart even in R5RS.

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