GNU bug report logs - #17474
Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem convenient

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 17474 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org>, 17474 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17474: Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem
 convenient
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:25:41 -0400

ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I’m not completely convinced it makes sense to “specify” the zero values
> case in this way, but I’d like to hear what others think.

I'm strongly opposed to having core Guile mechanisms automatically
convert between SCM_UNSPECIFIED and zero values, which is part of what
David's patch set does.  I'd be glad to explain the reasons for my
position in a later message, but I don't have time right now.

However, I'm (cautiously) open to the idea of changing (if #f x) and
some other things to return (values) instead of *unspecified*.  I agree
that it would be cleaner, though I worry about backward compatibility
issues.  It would have to be done between major releases.

    Regards,
      Mark

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.