From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Small read macro issue Date: 08 Oct 2002 02:11:59 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 29 Message-ID: <3243031919607252@naggum.no> References: <3242987175062451@naggum.no> <3242995842037739@naggum.no> <3243028580124863@naggum.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1034043119 1642 129.240.65.5 (8 Oct 2002 02:11:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Oct 2002 02:11:59 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:43416 * Adam Warner | Only zero or one return value is defined. Any extra return values are | undefined (not illegal because "may" has been used instead of "shall" or | "may only"). Extra values are always ignored in the rest of the language. It seems odd to say the least not to ignore additional values in this particular case. | As a matter of general principle should undefined behaviour never signal | an error (only a warning)? What use could there possibly be in reporting an error for too many values when the entire rest of the language quietly ignore them? | In this respect CLISP is forcing explicit compliance with defined ANSI | operations. No, it is not. There is no specification of an error if there are more than one value. CLISP has invented that part on its own. CLISP does a lot of that, actually, which is why I generally discommend it just like I discommend GCL. CLISP also teaches totally warped performance issues by virtue of dramatically different performance for system and user code. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.