"Jason Orendorff" <jason.orendorff_at_gmail.com> writes:
> Does anyone else feel a little weird about the phrase "the
> unspecified value"?
Indeed.
I wonder what would be the tradeoffs of specifying that these
operations return no values. Besides an obvious disadvantage of
breaking about any Scheme implementation out there, and breaking code
which had assigned them to variables. Given that Scheme has decided
to support multiple returned values at all, wouldn't this be a more
natural choice if Scheme was designed today?
BTW, here is a defect report. Section 7.2 "Script semantics" says:
"each <expression> that appears before a variable definition in the
script body is converted into a dummy definition (define <variable>
<expression>), where <variable> is a fresh identifier."
This breaks expressions returning multiple values. I suppose this was
not intended, as expressions evaluated for side effects are generally
allowed to return any number of values.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ qrczak_at_knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Received on Wed Sep 20 2006 - 18:59:52 UTC