On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stefan Edwards scripsit: > > > "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." > > But that would be almost the reverse of the programmer's likely intent. > Whether it's (exit "bad arguments") on Windows or (exit 1) on Plan 9, > the intention of a random argument is almost certainly failure rather > than success, because as I said there is only one kind of success and > many kinds of failure. So if anything uninterpretable arguments should > be mapped to #f. > I could agree to that as well; I thought about mapping it to #f initially, but went with #t to stick to 6.3, but this sounds acceptable to me as well. > > -- > One Word to write them all, John Cowan <[email protected]> > One Access to find them, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > One Excel to count them all, > And thus to Windows bind them. --Mike Champion > -- ==== 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
