[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1 |
Date: |
Wed, 25 May 2011 19:10:56 +0200 |
On 25 May 2011, at 18:54, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> Right, but as the result is unspecified according to the standard, the
>>>> Guile manual suggests that the value SCM_UNSPECIFIED as an
>>>> interpretation of that. I merely say that I think it would be a good
>>>> idea.
>> ...
>>> Having said all this, one could still make the case that we should
>>> attempt to return SCM_UNSPECIFIED from expressions whose values are
>>> unspecified by the standards whenever _practical_. However, doing this
>>> would prevent us from implementing extensions to many aspects of the
>>> standard.
>>
>> Then sec. 10.2.5.2 of the manual needs to be clarified. It should say
>> if a returned value is SCM_UNSPECIFIED then the standard says it is
>> unspecified, but not the other way around.
>
> Okay, I have clarified the description of SCM_UNSPECIFIED.
Fine.
> Thanks for pointing this out.
You are welcome.
Hans
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, (continued)
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/23
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/23
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Mark H Weaver, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/25
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Mark H Weaver, 2011/05/25
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1,
Hans Aberg <=