John Cowan wrote:
> Many R5.91RS commentators expressed a strong dislike for the name
> "the unspecified value", because of the strong potential for confusion
> between "is the unspecified value" and "is unspecified". (This should be
> distinguished from a strong dislike that an overlapping set of commentator
> expressed for the *concept* of allowing such procedures to return any
> value whatever.)
>
> The editor should choose a different name and then stick to it.
> Attempting to get consensus about the name is hopeless and probably
> misconceived.
My (unofficial) sense is that there's not a problem amongst the editors
with choosing a different name, if the current semantics for the value
in question is retained. Rather, pending a more comprehensive
resolution of the issues described in formal comment 87[*], renaming
"the unspecified value" may simply be a temporary cosmetic change.
A related comment is #118[**], for which the formal response was:
"As no clear consensus on this issue has emerged, the next draft of the
report will retain the status quo. However, it is still under active
discussion: The editors welcome additional suggestions and commentary."
The consensus referred to has to do with how to address the semantic
issue, not with the value's name. The latter, if needed, will likely be
chosen by a simple vote of the editors.
Anton
[*]
http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-87.txt
[**]
http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-118.txt
Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 08:38:26 UTC