[R6RS] The unspecified values, multiple-value semantics and all that

[Michael Sperber]

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

>>  *  Library procedures can't ever be sure their continuation
>>     will accept zero values.  That assumption could be added
>>     to their contract, but that would be an incompatible
>>     change to the contracts of procedures that currently
>>     return a single unspecified result.
>
> This is the crux of the matter.  I would be inclined to make set!, write,
> etc., return zero values if it weren't for the huge backward compatibility
> problem it would cause.

I guess that's the main thing I wanted to find out in a poll: Almost
none (make that: no code I'm aware of) of the code I deal with would
be affected by this change.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla