Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed compromise on #68 "unspecified value(s)"

["Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:16:56 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@x>  
wrote:

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