[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)
- From: Alan Watson <alan@x>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:49:06 -0600
Formal Comment
Submitter's Name: Alan Watson
Submitter's Email Address: alan@x
Draft Version of Report: 6
Section of draft R7RS: 6.13.4 System interface
The draft R7RS follows the R6RS in specifying that (exit) is a
normal exit, specifying that (exit #f) is an abnormal exit, and
leaving the interpretation of arguments other than #f to the
implementation.
I suggest that the R7RS should specify that (exit #t) is identical
to (exit). (Perhaps it would be clearer to state that (exit #t) is
a normal exit and (exit) is identical to (exit #t)).
This allows the exit status to be handled more uniformly by code
which might exit normally or abnormally. For example, in a compiler
it is often useful to continue after a syntax error, but in this
case one still wants to indicate an abnormal exit. If (exit #t) is
specified as above, one simply has to keep track of whether an error
has occurred in a boolean variable and then:
(exit (not error-occurred))
rather than the more cumbersome:
(if error-occurred
(exit #f)
(exit))
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports