[R6RS] The unspecified values, multiple-value semantics and all that

[Michael Sperber]

Thanks for your comments!  (In particular for checking out more
implementations than I have.)

William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> I'm not sure you want to make that claim either.  I agree
> with the claim myself, but when I tried to suggest this
> connection over on r6rs-discuss, reaction was generally
> negative.

I'm trying to find out what exactly you're referring to.  The main
"negative reactions" I can see to your post

http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2006-September/000104.html

all seem to say that they're bewildered by a semantics that coerce
zero return values to the/an unspecified value.  That may be because
they genuinely prefer a semantics that forbids this, or because the
semantic option you prefer hasn't been adequately or prominently
explained.  Maybe it should?

> My personal vote would be to drop the whole thing, leaving
> the matter as in R5RS, and turn our attention to the more
> important things.

It seems important enough to enough people to have generated one of
the longest threads on the list.  At least the issues need to be
explained at some point in the rationale document.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla