Re: A value for "nothing"

[Mark H Weaver]

John Cowan <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:40 AM Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:
>  
>  That's the phrase used in R7RS-small, which fails to define it, as you
>  noted, but that shortcoming is limited to R7RS.
>
> The relevant sentences in R5RS and R7RS are identical: " If <test>
> yields a false value and no <alternate> is specified, then the result
> of the expression is unspecified."  Likewise, the paragraph from 1.3.2
> you quote below is identical in both standards.  So either they both
> define it or they both don't.
>
>  In R6RS, section 11.4.3 (Conditionals) provides this example:
>
> Unlike Wil Clinger, and apparently you, I don't believe that examples
> in specs are normative.

Alright, well, the formal denotational semantics makes it 100%
unambiguous, as I noted in my previous email.

       Mark