Scheme language standardization process
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:16:56 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote: > If a syntax form or procedure is specified as returning an > undefined value, it is an error to store this value in a > location or attempt to output it onto a stream. This would break many existing Schemes and I don't think it's going to help us any. It's more invasive than multiple, unspecified values, and I don't see it as giving us any benefits. We've already voted that all of the built-in procedures return a single unspecified value, I don't think we need to hammer this out further, despite the fact that I wish we had gone with the R6RS approach of allowing unspecified valueS instead of just a single value. 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