Andre van Tonder scripsit: > No, the code would not break. The proposed change (not requiring > a return value but still allowing it) would change little for your > purported user. His preferred implementation will remain compliant on > this /without any change/, and he can continue to program as before. > The only thing that changes is that he cannot rely on this behavior as > being portable.
Right. That is to say, it works fine on all R5 implementations, but not on all R6 ones. It is a backwards incompatible change. Such changes can be made, but they require a threshold that was not met, and there's no point in moaning about it now. If new *evidence* is brought forward, that's another matter. -- [W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot [email protected] that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith http://ccil.org/~cowan in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
