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

[Andre van Tonder <andre@x>]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, John Cowan wrote:

>> 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.

I agree.  It feels like a good Schemely way of what is called "deprecating" in 
other language standards.

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