[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)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x>
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
Well, I agree, and Plan9 is exactly the reason why I was thinking that, but my thought with following
section 6.3 is for items that cannot be translated "into an appropriate exit value for the operating system."
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.
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
Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Scheme-reports mailing list