[plt-scheme] Please help test version 359.100

From: Dave Herman (dherman at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 14 11:43:07 EST 2006

> I think Jacob and I only said it cannot be *multiple* values, unless
> your system implicitly converts multiple values to a single value.
> No one has disagreed with that.

Now I think I understand what your point was before -- IIUC, you weren't 
saying that there is a single value dubbed "the unspecified value"; 
rather, you were just saying that even in R5RS, the result of for-each 
is still *specified*, it's just specified to be *any single value*.

So even though this is less constrained than the draft R6RS semantics 
(where there is only one single "unspecified value" for all 
implementations and all program executions), your earlier point was that 
it's still misleading in R5RS to call it "unspecified," since it is 
perfectly well specified as "any single value."

According to Jacob's (plausible) interpretation.

Do I read you correctly?


Posted on the users mailing list.