[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Multiple values
Eli Barzilay scripsit:
> In any case, that's how multiple values fit in the scheme historical
> And BTW, as long as I gave the above example, and was dragged to quote
> the relevant part of R5RS, I can just as well continue the quote:
> Except for continuations created by the call-with-values procedure,
> all continuations take exactly one value.
> and it should be clear now why Chibi's implementation is just plain
You know that is not true. How dare you say such a thing? I suppose
next you will inform me that (car #f) and (cons 1 2 3) are also
compelled to signal errors?
> If you want to get pickier, then all implementations that don't barf
> (list 1 (values 2 3 4) 5)
> are broken because according to R5RS:
> (values obj ...)
> Delivers all of its arguments to its continuation. Except for
> continuations created by the call-with-values procedure, all
> continuations take exactly one value.
If R5RS said "Except for [...], all continuations must signal an error
if they do not receive exactly one value", then you'd be right. It
doesn't and you aren't.
> | Chibi's use cases just aren't anything like Racket's.
> was just irrelevant nonsense,
You are entitled to consider it irrelevant to your concerns. The
statement is not nonsense. Indeed, it is true. If you say otherwise,
you are a liar.
> (And yes, "Ultimately, if you want R6RS, you know where to find it."
> is wrong too, but who's counting?)
And I'm done with you. It's a pity, because I've learned things from
you, but you are going out of your way to make yourself offensive, and
I see no reason to stand for it. I adopt this harsh and public mode of
denunciation to make my intentions unmistakably clear.
De plichten van een docent zijn divers, John Cowan
die van het gehoor ook. cowan@x
--Edsger Dijkstra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list