Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)

[Stefan Edwards <saedwards.ecc@x>]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:31 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

Stefan Edwards scripsit:

> I guess what I'm driving at is for the standard to explain how to treat
> items that fail the above instance of
> translation into appropriate values, in some standard way.

I don't see how: the issue seems about as implementation-dependent
as anything could be.  What approach should the standard provide
for converting Plan 9 error strings into the far more common Windows/Posix
numbers from 1 to 255?  (I assume that APE has a reverse convention,
but I can't find any documentation of it online.)

"For any value that does not map to an operating system acceptable exit value, and is not a boolean,

it is the recommendation of this report to treat it as a true conditional, for purposes of  creating an exit value."

Which seems pretty hairy to me. As I said, it was only a thought, rather than a deeply held belief, but it seems

reasonable to have a standards-compliant method for dealing with objects that cannot be mapped. 

--
"Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates.         John Cowan
You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down   cowan@x
people who still have processes running, and kill them."

-- 
====
Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. No.
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports