Andre van Tonder scripsit:

> No, the code would not break.  The proposed change (not requiring
> a return value but still allowing it) would change little for your
> purported user.  His preferred implementation will remain compliant on
> this /without any change/, and he can continue to program as before.
> The only thing that changes is that he cannot rely on this behavior as
> being portable.

Right.  That is to say, it works fine on all R5 implementations, but not
on all R6 ones.  It is a backwards incompatible change.  Such changes
can be made, but they require a threshold that was not met, and there's
no point in moaning about it now.  If new *evidence* is brought forward,
that's another matter.

--
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little              John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot       cowan@ccil.org
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith          http://ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables.  --And Rosta

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