[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Tom Lord
Subject: silliness
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 03:20:12 -0700 (PDT)

       As I read the standard, R4RS does not permit that () and #f
       might be the same

If you read the rrrs-authors list, it becomes clear that the intent
was to permit both possibilities for ()/#f in R4RS.

R5RS made the bias in most of R4RS into a requirement.  This change
required a vote among the authors on the topic of whether or not ()
and #f were required to be distinct.

The precision of the RnRS language could be improved.

If you have more to say on the topic, I suggest writing it up in a
form suitable for inclusion in a design log.  Sending that to me
directly might be more appropriate than sending to this list -- but
by all means, send it to the list if you want it archived.

     Moreover, in no standard of Scheme has it ever been acceptible
     for nil to match either () or #f.  What do you want nil to be?

You are confused about how the word "nil" has been used on this list.
I believe you are incorrect about the history of RnRS, as well, though
I don't have the source materials handy.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]