On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:31 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stefan Edwards scripsit: > > > 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. > > I don't see how: the issue seems about as implementation-dependent > as anything could be. What approach should the standard provide > for converting Plan 9 error strings into the far more common Windows/Posix > numbers from 1 to 255? (I assume that APE has a reverse convention, > but I can't find any documentation of it online.) > "For any value that does not map to an operating system acceptable exit value, and is not a boolean, it is the recommendation of this report to treat it as a true conditional, for purposes of creating an exit value." Which seems pretty hairy to me. As I said, it was only a thought, rather than a deeply held belief, but it seems reasonable to have a standards-compliant method for dealing with objects that cannot be mapped. > -- > "Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates. John Cowan > You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down > [email protected] > people who still have processes running, and kill them." > -- ==== 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
