On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:02:04 -0400, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> 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.

By the way, "me toos" matter on this list (from non-group members).

We won't arbitrarily revisit decisions we've already made,
but if a new argument is raised (not so in this case) or
enough people complain (not yet in this case), we can
re-open the ticket.

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports