[r6rs-discuss] "Unspecified"

[Per Bothner]

Robby Findler wrote:
> At Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:32:52 -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> He's talking about standard practice.

You mean passing the output of set-vector! to display is standard
practice?  I'm scared ...
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per at bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/