[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: RETURN-VALUES-UNSPECIFIED (Version 4)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: RETURN-VALUES-UNSPECIFIED (Version 4)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 19:11 EDT
My notes from Fairfax meeting...
Thought ready for vote.
Barmar: Wants to leave some of these unspecified.
KMP: That just causes portability problems. Don't want to leave it
unspecified -unless- someone can cite a reason to do so.
JonL: People doing things like (AND (PRINT X) (PRINT Y)) need
return values specified. [KMP choked at this thought.]
Haflich: If many weren't defined, maybe we should leave 'em, but
since nearly all -are- defined, let's just go ahead and
round out the set.
Skona: Most text books she's seen show CLOSE returning NIL.
One text book shows it returning T.
Since some people like to think of T as success and NIL
as failure, maybe it should always return T.
[There was some ensuing discussion of whether it could
ever return NIL since it signals an error in that case.]
People seemed to think CLOSE should probably return T.
No vote was attempted.