David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> That is just mistaken, erroneous, fallacious, ill-judged, and in a
> thousand other ways wrong. It may be standards-compliant, but still
> wrong. That is really awful, I would never have guessed that. Since
> the return value CAN'T matter, it SHOULD NOT matter!!!
>
> Thanks for letting us know - that would clearly impact portability.
I wouldn't worry too much about portability to SigScheme, Shoe, or Owl
Lisp, frankly. SCM may be another matter; I'm not sure how widely used
it is any more.
> Yes, but if that gets back to the REPL it may do something funny. By
> definition that is undefined.
By definition it's an undefined *value*. In all the Schemes I have, it
returns either an undefined-value object (which the REPL suppresses the
printing of) or some random object such as #t or #f. The exception is
Racket, in which it is a syntax error: there is no guarantee that the
default Racket language is Scheme conformant, though.
> > But I can live with it.
>
> Yes, but I want to make this *more* portable not *less*.
>
> Maybe we should define our own "no-value" value,
> and use a macro to define it.
Why a macro? It can be just a function (as it is in Chicken, named `void`)
or even just a global variable.
--
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
--Nicholas van Rijn
John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DreamFactory - Open Source REST & JSON Services for HTML5 & Native Apps
OAuth, Users, Roles, SQL, NoSQL, BLOB Storage and External API Access
Free app hosting. Or install the open source package on any LAMP server.
Sign up and see examples for AngularJS, jQuery, Sencha Touch and Native!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63469471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
