On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, John Cowan wrote: >> This would break many existing Schemes and I don't think it's going to >> help us any. It's more invasive than multiple, unspecified values, and I >> don't see it as giving us any benefits. We've already voted that all of >> the built-in procedures return a single unspecified value, I don't think >> we need to hammer this out further, despite the fact that I wish we had >> gone with the R6RS approach of allowing unspecified values instead of just >> a single value.
I agree. It feels like a good Schemely way of what is called "deprecating" in other language standards. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
