[plt-scheme] Please help test version 359.100

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 14 11:39:52 EST 2006

At Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:36:43 -0500, Dave Herman wrote:
> > Dave and I argue that an implementation can make up a new random value
> > -- as long as it is a Scheme value -- and use it wherever the 
> > semanticssays unspecified.
> Whatever we end up inferring from R5RS, the moral is that the word 
> "unspecified" is terribly ambiguous and should probably be avoided. 

I think the moral is "don't take over words with established meanings
and give them new ones (esp. not hyper-technical ones)". This also
applies to "is an error". (Perhaps another, related moral: use a formal
specification when you can ...)


Posted on the users mailing list.