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

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

Two hours ago, John Cowan wrote:
> 
> So it is not invasive and breaks nothing except user code like
> 
>         (define x (set! y 32))
> 
> which has no portable meaning in any case (it will not work in
> Racket, e.g.).

Sure it does.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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