From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: 17474@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17474: Another point
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:45:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874mzdebvj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwd5wmj0.fsf@yeeloong.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:17:39 -0400")
Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> It is worth pointing out that the current state of Guile is inconsistent
>> regarding the return value of control structures: one primitive control
>> structure builder is call/cc, and its normal use does not return
>> *unspecified* but (values):
>>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (call-with-values (lambda () (call/cc (lambda
>> (exit) (exit)))) list)
>> $5 = ()
>
> The values returned are the arguments passed to 'exit'. Normal use is
> to pass the desired return value(s) to 'exit'.
Well, that's the point. You'll not see anybody using a particular value
like *unspecified* for his control structures built from Scheme
primitives, and yet the C API recommends returning SCM_UNSPECIFIED.
--
David Kastrup
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-22 5:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-12 11:40 bug#17474: Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem convenient David Kastrup
2014-05-12 15:53 ` Ludovic Courtès
[not found] ` <8738gfyoxm.fsf@gnu.org>
2014-05-12 16:58 ` David Kastrup
2014-05-12 19:21 ` Ludovic Courtès
2014-05-12 19:49 ` David Kastrup
2014-06-22 5:25 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-06-22 6:09 ` David Kastrup
2014-06-21 21:30 ` bug#17474: Another point David Kastrup
2014-06-22 5:17 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-06-22 5:45 ` David Kastrup [this message]
2014-08-09 9:17 ` bug#17474: Ping? David Kastrup
2014-08-10 19:12 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-08-10 20:26 ` David Kastrup
2014-08-10 21:48 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-08-10 22:00 ` Mark H Weaver
2015-06-01 14:04 ` David Kastrup
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874mzdebvj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=17474@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=mhw@netris.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).