Scheme language standardization process
On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:02:04 -0400, Per Bothner <per@x> wrote: > > But there is an elegance to doing it this way: If the REPL prints out all > the values of multiple values, then doing nothing when there are no > values > doesn't even require special casing. Indeed, I see no reason why an implementation should not be able to return no values when there are no "useful" values to consider, and R6RS moved *away* from overspecifying this to allow implementation to return as many different values as they felt like doing. I've mentioned before that this seems to be a much better thing than to force a single value. However, the votes came in and R5RS' semantics won out. Aaron W. Hsu -- Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports