[r6rs-discuss] "Unspecified"

[Anton van Straaten]

Robby Findler wrote:
> At Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:01:02 -0400, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> 
>>However, allegations that these usages are *wrong* in some sense seem to 
>>result from a misunderstanding of the sense in which the terms are being 
>>used.
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone doubts there is a way to use the language
> consistently, but perhaps if a different word were chosen (the "boring"
> value or the "uninteresting" value or the "unit" value (following ML)
> or ...) it would be clearer to casual readers what was going on.

I'm not arguing against that, specifically.  I originally responded to a 
comment which indicated that (what I understand to be) the intent behind 
the current language hadn't been understood, and I wanted to clarify that.

Anton