Vincent Manis scripsit: > One additional editorial point about eof objects. This is, I think, > the only type mentioned in the Report that is not listed in section > 3.2. I would suggest adding at the bottom, wording such as `In addition, > there is an implementation-defined set of end-of-file objects, which > satisfy the predicate eof-object?. This type is not required to be > disjoint from any other type, provided that the constraints specified > by the input procedures that may return such objects are met.'
As noted in ticket #333, an eof-object already cannot be a boolean, pair, symbol, number, character, string, vector, or bytevector, because these objects have external representations and an eof-object MUST NOT. It is theoretically possible for it to be a procedure or a port, but none of the 40 Schemes actually exploits this possibility. The ticket therefore proposes that it be made formally disjoint. -- Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], John Cowan one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan struggling for life in the water, and when [email protected] he has reached ground encumbers him with help? --Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
