home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!torn!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz
- From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
- Subject: Re: Unspecified values in R4RS
- Message-ID: <OZ.93Jan22114638@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
- Date: 22 Jan 93 16:46:38 GMT
- References: <1993Jan21.195822.23639@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca> <1jn7ou$m5n@agate.berkeley.edu>
- <BRENT.93Jan22085102@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com>
- <1jp5n7$nm@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
- Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
- Lines: 25
- In-Reply-To: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU's message of 22 Jan 1993 16: 00:39 GMT
-
- Brian Harvey writes:
-
- Leaving something unspecified in the standard invites some implementor to
- give it a "useful" value; and that encourages users of that implementation
- to use it; and that makes programs non-portable.
-
- Are there such implementations? Isn't there some that return
- #<unspecified>, which is not a "useful" value? Can we point to real
- implementations, instead of talking about a hypothetical one?
-
- It's not as if DEFINE were only invented last week, so we need another year
- or two of experience with it before we can have opinions about what value
- it should return.
-
- So far as I know, even its exact semantics [ie. internal vs top-level]
- is under discussion, let alone any values it may or may not return. So
- much for things invented a long time ago.
-
- oz
- ---
- Truth doesn't always win friends, but | electric: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
- influences people. -- Batty Koda | pho: [416] 736 2100 x 33976
-
-
-
-