On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip> > I don't support this, because process exit is not like Scheme truth. > In a process exit, there is only one kind of success (0 in Posix/Windows, > "" in Plan 9, 2 in VMS, etc.), whereas there are many kinds of failure. > So #t should map to conventional success, #f should map to some kind of > failure, and any other object should be (as far as possible) passed to > the OS. > Well, I agree, and Plan9 is exactly the reason why I was thinking that, but my thought with following section 6.3 is for items that cannot be translated "into an appropriate exit value for the operating system." I guess what I'm driving at is for the standard to explain how to treat items that fail the above instance of translation into appropriate values, in some standard way. > -- > A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: [email protected]] > Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev] > "Your verse would be sweeter http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > If it only had metre > And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan." [overpacked line!] > --Michael Kay > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports > -- ==== Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? A. No.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
