From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Aberg Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:10:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <6B109ACE-F9E4-463D-8314-A19CC40D5B50@telia.com> <87ei3nk4mg.fsf@netris.org> <1BCD41C1-8A89-4202-B8E2-761790E2A0A0@telia.com> <87aaeak9fh.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306343480 30254 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2011 17:11:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 17:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 25 19:11:15 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 1QPHc2-0004aO-Qt for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 19:11:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55994 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHc2-0008Ed-CX for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:11:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35608) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHbz-0008EF-D0 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:11:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHby-0000xB-Ho for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:11:11 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-out11.han.skanova.net ([195.67.226.200]:35586) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QPHby-0000x1-8S for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:11:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.0.1.2] (217.210.127.13) by smtp-out11.han.skanova.net (8.5.133) (authenticated as u26619196) id 4D6512CA02359AFB; Wed, 25 May 2011 19:10:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87aaeak9fh.fsf@netris.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 195.67.226.200 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:5620 Archived-At: On 25 May 2011, at 18:54, 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. Fine. > Thanks for pointing this out. You are welcome. Hans