From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:26 -0400 Message-ID: <87aaeak9fh.fsf@netris.org> References: <6B109ACE-F9E4-463D-8314-A19CC40D5B50@telia.com> <87ei3nk4mg.fsf@netris.org> <1BCD41C1-8A89-4202-B8E2-761790E2A0A0@telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306342482 22240 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2011 16:54:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile To: Hans Aberg Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 25 18:54:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLy-0007HV-0g for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 18:54:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58699 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLx-0004sH-LU for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57979) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLu-0004rz-JU for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLt-0004zn-Iz for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:34 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:56541) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLt-0004zh-GZ for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:33 -0400 Original-Received: from 209-6-41-222.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.41.222] helo=freedomincluded) by world.peace.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLo-0003Ad-MQ; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mhw by freedomincluded with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHLn-0000PP-7S; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:54:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1BCD41C1-8A89-4202-B8E2-761790E2A0A0@telia.com> (Hans Aberg's message of "Wed, 25 May 2011 10:41:23 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5619 Archived-At: Hans Aberg writes: > On 25 May 2011, at 02:25, Mark H Weaver wrote: > >>> Right, but as the result is unspecified according to the standard, the >>> Guile manual suggests that the value SCM_UNSPECIFIED as an >>> interpretation of that. I merely say that I think it would be a good >>> idea. > ... >> Having said all this, one could still make the case that we should >> attempt to return SCM_UNSPECIFIED from expressions whose values are >> unspecified by the standards whenever _practical_. However, doing this >> would prevent us from implementing extensions to many aspects of the >> standard. > > Then sec. 10.2.5.2 of the manual needs to be clarified. It should say > if a returned value is SCM_UNSPECIFIED then the standard says it is > unspecified, but not the other way around. Okay, I have clarified the description of SCM_UNSPECIFIED. Thanks for pointing this out. Best, Mark