Am 18.11.2013 04:38, schrieb John Cowan: > David A. Wheeler scripsit: > >> Yes, but if that gets back to the REPL it may do something funny. By >> definition that is undefined. > By definition it's an undefined *value*.
Which is the actual problem: the definition. IMHO there should be no undefined *value* as such. It should be just undefined what's being returned. If - for some reason - some fake value need to be there to satisfy some other condition, so be it. But Scheme would IMHO be better off along the default Racket way. > In all the Schemes I have, it > returns either an undefined-value object (which the REPL suppresses the > printing of) or some random object such as #t or #f. The exception is > Racket, in which it is a syntax error: there is no guarantee that the > default Racket language is Scheme conformant, though. > >>> But I can live with it. >> Yes, but I want to make this *more* portable not *less*. >> >> Maybe we should define our own "no-value" value, >> and use a macro to define it. > Why a macro? It can be just a function (as it is in Chicken, named `void`) > or even just a global variable. > Because a macro would make things Racket compatible, a value would just re-enforce the questionable definition. I'll deal with that. David, should I just keep patching or do you have a current snapshot of the accepted patches so far for me? /Jörg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DreamFactory - Open Source REST & JSON Services for HTML5 & Native Apps OAuth, Users, Roles, SQL, NoSQL, BLOB Storage and External API Access Free app hosting. Or install the open source package on any LAMP server. Sign up and see examples for AngularJS, jQuery, Sencha Touch and Native! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63469471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
