[r6rs-discuss] "Unspecified"

[AndrevanTonder]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Michael Sperber wrote:

> William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> ....
>>     (let* ((v (f ...))
>>            (ignored (vector-set! v i ...))
>>            (v2 (g v ...)))
>>       ...)
>
> One alternative to deal with this would be to truly have (unspecified)
> return an unspecified number of unspecified values (in the sense of
> "the report doesn't tell you how many and what they are) with the
> constraint that (unspecified) must be able to return to a continuation
> that accepts a single value.  This would keep code such as the above
> working, and make the name more appropriate.

Do the editors consider it to be important to keep the above code working? 
Just curious as to the reasons - in most sitations it would be more useful to 
me personally to have this not work, since this kind of thing is in my 
experience more often a bug than intentional.

Cheers
Andre