+1 is there a good argument for set! to return unspecified?
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:35 AM, namekuseijin <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking of RNRSs unspecified behaviours I always wished to modify: > > (set! foo bar) > and > (sequence-set! foo index val) > > to return the value of the variable being set. Come on, I know you > folks wish it too... :P > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On May 5, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> >>> In PL, such questions should be decided via mathematical models that >>> do not depend on machines and compilers. That's the only way to truly >>> disambiguate the English in a spec. >>> >>> For whatever reasons, the editors moved the only piece of mathematics >>> semantics (which doesn't include modules and macros) to the appendix, >>> for reasons that still escape me. Well, they don't really. If you >>> don't have a tool for arbitrating two distinct interpretations of >>> an informal document, you can always claim that both are correct and >>> if you so desire, you can claim one of them is, eh, smart? :-) >> >> Such tool helps indeed, but it's not the only way to arbitrate >> the different interpretations of the document. As a matter of >> fact, the document in question explicitly states that both of >> these interpretations (and many others) are allowed and are >> correct with regard to satisfying the report's requirements. >> The issue here is that the library in question has nonportable >> semantics (as should be clear from reading the document) but >> this is the same as depending on any other unspecified behavior >> (such as one implementation's evaluation order: left-to-right, >> right-to-left, ...). You're not arguing that there must be >> only one valid and true interpretation of the report, right? >> >> Aziz,,, >> >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme >> >
