[r6rs-discuss] "Unspecified"

[Per Bothner]

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 Bothner
per at bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/