On Fri, 20 May 2011, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > 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.
I think the R6RS approach here is superior. It removes a useless postulate regarding the behavior of portable programs and enlarges the space of conforming implementations. In removing this weakness/restriction, it seems to me more Schemely, in the sense of the first paragraph of the introduction of R7RS. I think that if R7RS wishes to go to the trouble of reintroducing this rather useless restriction, it will need to accompany it by some very strong justification. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
