On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:02:04 -0400, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But there is an elegance to doing it this way: If the REPL prints out all >> the values of multiple values, then doing nothing when there are no >> values >> doesn't even require special casing. > > Indeed, I see no reason why an implementation should not be able to return > no values when there are no "useful" values to consider, and R6RS moved > *away* from overspecifying this to allow implementation to return as many > different values as they felt like doing. I've mentioned before that this > seems to be a much better thing than to force a single value. > > However, the votes came in and R5RS' semantics won out.
By the way, "me toos" matter on this list (from non-group members). We won't arbitrarily revisit decisions we've already made, but if a new argument is raised (not so in this case) or enough people complain (not yet in this case), we can re-open the ticket. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
