[r6rs-discuss] "Unspecified"

From: AndrevanTonder <andre>
Date: Fri Oct 6 10:46:01 2006

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Michael Sperber wrote:

> William D Clinger <will_at_ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> ....
>> (let* ((v (f ...))
>> (ignored (vector-set! v i ...))
>> (v2 (g v ...)))
>> ...)
>
> One alternative to deal with this would be to truly have (unspecified)
> return an unspecified number of unspecified values (in the sense of
> "the report doesn't tell you how many and what they are) with the
> constraint that (unspecified) must be able to return to a continuation
> that accepts a single value. This would keep code such as the above
> working, and make the name more appropriate.

Do the editors consider it to be important to keep the above code working?
Just curious as to the reasons - in most sitations it would be more useful to
me personally to have this not work, since this kind of thing is in my
experience more often a bug than intentional.

Cheers
Andre
Received on Fri Oct 06 2006 - 10:43:10 UTC