On 05/19/11 20:50, Emmanuel Medernach wrote:

> PS: For me the real problem is elsewhere: I really dislike to have a value
> which is an unspecified one, I prefer instead that implementations return
> nothing - as in (values) - and to let the standard legitimates some
> implementation which wants to return something (as with MIT-Scheme with set!
> to have a kind of test-and-set instruction, however I don't know of other
> examples)

Yes. As I said in WG1 discussion, I think this nonsense of an "undefined
value" (that is then thereby defined...) is daft.

(values) is the logical thing to return if you have nothing to return.

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

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