[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed compromise on #68 "unspecified value(s)"
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:16:56 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@x>
> If a syntax form or procedure is specified as returning an
> undefined value, it is an error to store this value in a
> location or attempt to output it onto a stream.
This would break many existing Schemes and I don't think it's going to
help us any. It's more invasive than multiple, unspecified values, and I
don't see it as giving us any benefits. We've already voted that all of
the built-in procedures return a single unspecified value, I don't think
we need to hammer this out further, despite the fact that I wish we had
gone with the R6RS approach of allowing unspecified valueS instead of just
a single value.
Aaron W. Hsu
Programming is just another word for the lost Art of Thinking.
Scheme-reports mailing list