[bug#29745] [PATCH 0/3] Disallow phase returning <unspecified>.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Arun Isaac <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> it ends up defining a notion of “true” that’s different from that of
>>> Scheme (in Scheme, #f is the only false value; everything else is
>>> true, including “the unspecified value”—see “Disjointness of types” in
>>> the R5RS.)
>>
>> I agree. I don't think we should define a new notion of "true" that is
>> different from that of Scheme.
>>
>> But, in that case, why do we explicitly add #t at the end of phases that
>> return an unspecified value? Can we not drop this convention and simply
>> accept unspecified values from phases as a success of that phase?
>>
>> The way it is right now, we add #t at the end of phases that return an
>> unspecified value, but don't check for this anywhere. So, we have a lot
>> of custom phases where people have forgotten to return #t. Patches 2 and
>> 3 fix some of these, but I'm sure there are many more. Wouldn't it be
>> simpler and more logical to accept unspecified values as "true" in line
>> with Scheme's notion of "true"?
>
> That’s a good question.  My take on it is that it’s clearer: the return
> value of ‘substitute*’ for instance is unspecified, it’s not necessarily
> *the* unspecified value.
>
> I’m not opposed to changing things though.  For instance we could change
> the return value of ‘substitute*’ to be #t on success; similarly for
> ‘install-file’.

I would like to change the return value for these two things.  It would
be good for “substitute*” to return #f when a pattern could not be
matched, but this would require a few changes to a number of packages
where we replace a pattern in many files at once.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net