[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1 |
Date: |
Tue, 24 May 2011 12:35:36 +0200 |
On 23 May 2011, at 15:49, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> But, it is 1 and 2, currently. (+ FOO) inlines just to FOO, too
>>> optimistically.
>>
>> It is unspecified according to rsr5.
>
> I know. I'm talking about Guile here.
The Guile manual, sec. 10.2.5.2, says that SCM_UNSPECIFIED is to be used when
the Scheme standard says the return is an unspecified value.
So this Lisp extension breaks off from that. If one wants it, perhaps, there
should be some way to invoke it.
Hans
- (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/22
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/23
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/23
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/23
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1,
Hans Aberg <=
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Andy Wingo, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Mark H Weaver, 2011/05/24
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/25
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Mark H Weaver, 2011/05/25
- Re: (+ (values 1 2)) should be 1, Hans Aberg, 2011/05/25