per at bothner.com
Mon Oct 2 10:32:52 EDT 2006
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> You are correct. My intention was to write the following:
> (define (for-each/logging f l)
> (for-each (lambda (v) (let ([w (f v)]) (display w) (newline) w)) l))
> which has the problem I was attempting to point out.
In R5RS or draft R6RS the result of set-vector! is unspecified
anyway, so the above display is undefined. So I don't think
I understand your concern.
If we had set-vector! return no value I think it would be
consistent to change or-each to also (always) return no value.
(I just submitted a formal request to do this.)
per at bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
More information about the r6rs-discuss