[Top][All Lists]

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#30145: closed ([PATCH] doc: Document undefined?.)

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#30145: closed ([PATCH] doc: Document undefined?.)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:23:02 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:52:08 +0530
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#30145: [PATCH] doc: Document unspecified?.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #30145,
regarding [PATCH] doc: Document undefined?.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

30145: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30145
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] doc: Document undefined?. Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:22:04 +0530
* doc/ref/data-rep.texi: Document undefined?.
 doc/ref/data-rep.texi | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/ref/data-rep.texi b/doc/ref/data-rep.texi
index bb7f74afe..ed3a5a522 100644
--- a/doc/ref/data-rep.texi
+++ b/doc/ref/data-rep.texi
@@ -470,6 +470,9 @@ check to see if @var{x} is @code{SCM_UNBOUND}.  History 
will not be kind
 to us.
 @end deftypefn
address@hidden {Scheme Procedure} undefined? x
+Return @code{#t} if @var{x} is undefined, else @code{#f}.
address@hidden deffn
 @node Non-immediate objects
 @subsubsection Non-immediate objects

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#30145: [PATCH] doc: Document unspecified?. Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:52:08 +0530
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:

About undefined?: That was a typo. I mentioned that in a later message.

> It's nonsensical to ask whether a given object is "unspecified".  When
> the Scheme standards say that the result of a computation is an
> unspecified value, that means that *any* Scheme object could be
> returned.
> In Guile, for historical reasons, we usually return a particular object
> SCM_UNSPECIFIED (a.k.a. *unspecified*) in cases where the specification
> says that the result is unspecified.  However, we make no promises that
> this will remain the case in future versions of Guile.
> The number of legitimate uses for 'unspecified?' is extremely small.  In
> fact, I can think of only one: when a REPL prints the result of a user's
> computation, it is nice to avoid printing "*unspecified*" and instead
> print nothing in that case.
> In almost every other case, use of 'unspecified?' implies an assumption
> that it's possible to detect when a value is an "unspecified" value,
> when in fact that is fundamentally impossible.
> What do you think?

I agree. I didn't put very much thought into the matter before I sent
the patch. I needed unspecified? for a patch to GNU Guix. I found the
info documentation missing for unspecified? and thought I'll write
it. Later, it turned out unspecified? was not necessary for the Guix
patch after all. But, I had already documented unspecified?. So, I sent
it here.

Anyways, I'll close this bug report.

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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