Formal comment #156 (defect) Rename the unspecified value Reported by: John Cowan Version: 5.92 Many R5.91RS commentators expressed a strong dislike for the name "the unspecified value", because of the strong potential for confusion between "is the unspecified value" and "is unspecified". (This should be distinguished from a strong dislike that an overlapping set of commentator expressed for the *concept* of allowing such procedures to return any value whatever.) The editor should choose a different name and then stick to it. Attempting to get consensus about the name is hopeless and probably misconceived. RESPONSE: The unspecified value will be removed in the next draft of the report. See also the response to formal comment #152.