Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values"

[Andy Wingo <wingo@x>]

On Sat 21 May 2011 15:57, Jim Rees <jimreesma@x> writes:

> apparently every major implementation wraps up multiple values into a
> single first-class object which can be passed around
> until a call-with-values detects it and de-composes it again  (please
> correct me if I'm wrong).

Guile does not do this.  Chez does not either FWIW.  Dunno about ikarus;
I think that it also follows the approach I linked to previously:

  http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/mrvs.pdf

> requiring (values...) to return a single first-class object, one which
> can be de-composed by call-with-values, and preferably does not return
> #t to any standard predicate, but has no other semantics.    (I am NOT
> recommending this, except to the extent that it makes your argument
> more consistent).

This would be an incompatible change.  (It's also not a good
implementation strategy; but that is MHO.)

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

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