On 25 May 2011, at 18:54, Mark H Weaver wrote: >>>> Right, but as the result is unspecified according to the standard, the >>>> Guile manual suggests that the value SCM_UNSPECIFIED as an >>>> interpretation of that. I merely say that I think it would be a good >>>> idea. >> ... >>> Having said all this, one could still make the case that we should >>> attempt to return SCM_UNSPECIFIED from expressions whose values are >>> unspecified by the standards whenever _practical_. However, doing this >>> would prevent us from implementing extensions to many aspects of the >>> standard. >> >> Then sec. 10.2.5.2 of the manual needs to be clarified. It should say >> if a returned value is SCM_UNSPECIFIED then the standard says it is >> unspecified, but not the other way around. > > Okay, I have clarified the description of SCM_UNSPECIFIED.
Fine. > Thanks for pointing this out. You are welcome. Hans
