First, thank you very much for all your feedback, in this current burst and throughout the process.
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Andy Wingo <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the R6RS did the right thing in allowing e.g. `(set! foo 10)' to > result in 0 values, and that R7RS did the wrong thing in reverting to > the R5RS "the result is unspecified". Some expressions just don't have > useful values, and forcing implementations to produce a value in that > case hides bugs, producing programs with less meaning. > You've raised this issue before. Also, from your mail on I/O: > Call-with-port not closing the port in exceptional situations is a > shame. As it is, the only thing you can do to close ports in > exceptional situations is to use dynamic-wind. Nasty. You've raised this issue before. We've discussed both to death. People feel very strongly on both sides, and I don't see any progress being made, so I'm not clear on your motivation for bringing it up again. If you want to provide a list of everything you don't like about R7RS (which I think is an excellent idea, and something I'm planning myself), it's probably better to write up a single document. Thanks again, -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
