From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>, 17474@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17474: Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem convenient
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:25:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87iontwm5m.fsf@yeeloong.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87egzyajm2.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 12 May 2014 21:21:25 +0200")
ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I’m not completely convinced it makes sense to “specify” the zero values
> case in this way, but I’d like to hear what others think.
I'm strongly opposed to having core Guile mechanisms automatically
convert between SCM_UNSPECIFIED and zero values, which is part of what
David's patch set does. I'd be glad to explain the reasons for my
position in a later message, but I don't have time right now.
However, I'm (cautiously) open to the idea of changing (if #f x) and
some other things to return (values) instead of *unspecified*. I agree
that it would be cleaner, though I worry about backward compatibility
issues. It would have to be done between major releases.
Regards,
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-22 5:25 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 [this message]
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
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=87iontwm5m.fsf@yeeloong.lan \
--to=mhw@netris.org \
--cc=17474@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.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).