This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Michael Burschik" <Burschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Procedures > > Are the "%" characters actually supposed to be "*" characters, or did > I miss something here? There's this note: When % is encountered in the definitions below, the actual name of the collection is implied. so, no, they are not supposed to be `*'. > Although it is customary not to define the return value of > destructive functions, the *-remove! functions might return #f or #t > to indicate whether the collection was actually modified, since > removing a value that is not present is not defined as an error. I would say that if you *have* an iterator (and the collection is mutable), then you have a value that can be removed. So, IMHO, sticking with the undefined returned value is correct, and concurs with most other SRFIs that include destructive ops (except, perhaps SRFI-1 where these are called linear updates). (Besides tradition, I've nothing against returning useful values from destructive ops, though.) [...] - --Francisco -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+r95Jq8bN5EAwVqMRArXkAKCEQA4F+xiQOKSFVmvA+uZ+PK0VDACgtvrJ 3w5GWl0QkEjiqH1OY9Ud60c= =soUl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----