On 05/19/11 20:50, Emmanuel Medernach wrote: > PS: For me the real problem is elsewhere: I really dislike to have a value > which is an unspecified one, I prefer instead that implementations return > nothing - as in (values) - and to let the standard legitimates some > implementation which wants to return something (as with MIT-Scheme with set! > to have a kind of test-and-set instruction, however I don't know of other > examples)
Yes. As I said in WG1 discussion, I think this nonsense of an "undefined value" (that is then thereby defined...) is daft. (values) is the logical thing to return if you have nothing to return. ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
