Re: [Scheme-reports] multiple values module

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@x> wrote:
>
> I can't help but feel that the above implementation is woefully broken. Is
> it conformant? Maybe you could make an argument for that, since the
> standards (R5RS and R6RS) don't say anything about what happens when
> (list? (values 1 2)) is evaluated. On the other hand, I hardly think that
> we should be looking to this as a good example of anything. A tiny
> implementation like Chibi could still be compliant without this mess (and
> I do think it is a mess). It could still be *easily* compliant without
> this mess. It's one thing to take liberties from the intentioned norms for
> good reasons, but I fail to see good reasons for doing the above.

Easily?  Without adding more than 10 lines or so of C?
Patches welcome! :)

-- 
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports