[plt-scheme] Please help test version 359.100

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 14 11:48:30 EST 2006

At Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:43:07 -0500, Dave Herman wrote:
> > 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*.

Right. (unless your system implicitly does multiple-value => single
value conversion, as jacob pointed out)

> 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?

YES!   :)


Posted on the users mailing list.