Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes:
> On 25 May 2011, at 02:25, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>
>>> Right, but as the result is unspecified according to the standard, the
>>> Guile manual suggests that the value SCM_UNSPECIFIED as an
>>> interpretation of that. I merely say that I think it would be a good
>>> idea.
> ...
>> Having said all this, one could still make the case that we should
>> attempt to return SCM_UNSPECIFIED from expressions whose values are
>> unspecified by the standards whenever _practical_. However, doing this
>> would prevent us from implementing extensions to many aspects of the
>> standard.
>
> Then sec. 10.2.5.2 of the manual needs to be clarified. It should say
> if a returned value is SCM_UNSPECIFIED then the standard says it is
> unspecified, but not the other way around.
Okay, I have clarified the description of SCM_UNSPECIFIED.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Best,
Mark
